Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

First let me say that I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, having been baptized as an infant and receiving Holy Communion at the age of 8 but in my late teens I could no longer take the Judao-Christian worldview seriously.... I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis.

On the other hand I can't reject belief in supernatural beings and do find the idea of polytheism to be rational... At least a better overall reflection of the real world.

I recently came across this interesting piece and found a lot to agree with:

http://www.ethnikoi.org/lefkowitz.htm

Here are some of her statements:

1. The poison is  not  religion; it's monotheism.

2. The Greeks and Romans did not share the narrow view of the ancient Hebrews that a divinity could only be masculine. Like many other ancient peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Greeks recognized female divinities.

3. Humans were free to speculate about the character and intentions of the gods. By allowing them to ask hard questions, Greek theology encouraged them to learn, to seek all the possible causes of events. Philosophy -- that characteristically Greek invention -- had its roots in such theological inquiry. As did science.

4. In the monotheistic traditions, in which God is omnipresent and always good, mortals must take the blame for whatever goes wrong, even though God permits evil to exist in the world he created.

5. The god of the Hebrews created the Earth for the benefit of humankind. But as the Greeks saw it, the gods made life hard for humans, didn't seek to improve the human condition and allowed people to suffer and die. There was no hope of redemption, no promise of a happy life or rewards after death.

6. The existence of many different gods also offers a  more  plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away.

7. Greek theology openly discourages blind confidence based on unrealistic hopes that everything will work out in the end.

*******

Do you agree with some of these viewpoints and/or see advantages to them ?

[Guido]

Why believe in the supernatural at all?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Guido,

I don't know....I just find the teleological argument very convincing and I don't care what the scientists and intellectuals have to say about it.

[greg]

uhhh...... no comment. I'm with Guido on this one.

[Diletante]

I don't know.

You don't know.

No one knows.

(I'm an Agnostic, you see... )

[The new erato]

I firmly believe Atheism would be better for us.

[Lethevich]

Hehe, "all gods are right" seems even more perverse to me than "all the other gods are wrong".

[david johnson]

polytheism is as silly as atheism.
monotheism is the way.

God bless,
dj

[71 dB]

Atheism for me.  0:)

I don't know....I just find the teleological argument very convincing and I don't care what the scientists and intellectuals have to say about it.

It's sad to hear someone talk like that. 

[Renfield]

In terms of better as 'efficient', you would probably go for something like Islam: simple and to the point.

In terms of better as 'conducive to the quality of human life', I don't think playing around with the number of supreme beings after settling the existential debate ('is there one?') would do much. Unless you turn to pantheism, which seems closer to what Lefkowitz is advocating: in which case you're back to where you started. Only there's now a fancy epiphenomenal metaphysics to contend with, too.

[david johnson]

'Atheism for me. 

Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 25, 2009, 06:20:19 PM
I don't know....I just find the teleological argument very convincing and I don't care what the scientists and intellectuals have to say about it.

It's sad to hear someone talk like that.'

------------------------------------------------------------------

and equally sad to hear the non-believers echo such sentiments toward believers.

dj

[Guido]

Guido,

I don't know....I just find the teleological argument very convincing...

Really? Wow.

[71 dB]

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?

[Homo Aestheticus]

It's sad to hear someone talk like that. 

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.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Polytheism is as silly as atheism.

Why ?

Monotheism is the way.

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

[drogulus]

In terms of better as 'efficient', you would probably go for something like Islam: simple and to the point.

In terms of better as 'conducive to the quality of human life', I don't think playing around with the number of supreme beings after settling the existential debate ('is there one?') would do much. Unless you turn to pantheism, which seems closer to what Lefkowitz is advocating: in which case you're back to where you started. Only there's now a fancy epiphenomenal metaphysics to contend with, too.

    I agree with you. "Conducive to the quality of life" is not a truth condition unless you make knowing the truth in itself a quality of life measure, which is a minority position in any era, I would think.

    If you want religion on the grounds that it's good for you stick with what you have and make it better. Just don't imagine that anything is made true that way. This is a common misconception among intelligent people, and I have to admit that I'm befuddled by it. Why is this mistake so easy to make? Eric thinks that polytheism might be better for him, so that makes it somehow more true, and then when Catholicism beckons to him a few years from now no doubt its "truth" will glow brighter, and then more feebly when the Crisis of Faith^TM arrives. Could it possibly be that something other than the truth is the variable here? I think this shows the wisdom of decoupling ideas of truth from ideas of usefulness and letting truth conditions stand on their own. That truth will be defined pragmatically remains the case, but by criteria chosen for the purpose.

[Guido]

    I agree with you. "Conducive to the quality of life" is not a truth condition unless you make knowing the truth in itself a quality of life measure, which is a minority position in any era, I would think.

    If you want religion on the grounds that it's good for you stick with what you have and make it better. Just don't imagine that anything is made true that way. This is a common misconception among intelligent people, and I have to admit that I'm befuddled by it. Why is this mistake so easy to make? Eric thinks that polytheism might be better for him, so that makes it somehow more true, and then when Catholicism beckons to him a few years from now no doubt its "truth" will glow brighter, and then more feebly when the Crisis of Faith^TM arrives. Could it possibly be that something other than the truth is the variable here? I think this shows the wisdom of decoupling ideas of truth from ideas of usefulness and letting truth conditions stand on their own. That truth will be defined pragmatically remains the case, but by criteria chosen for the purpose.

This intrigues me too because, as you say, it is such a common mistake.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Eric thinks that polytheism might be better for him, so that makes it somehow more true, and then when Catholicism beckons to him a few years from now no doubt its "truth" will glow brighter, and then more feebly when the Crisis of Faith^TM arrives.

Well I can assure you that Catholicism will never beckon to me. It never really did actually. I simply had some of its rituals performed on me as a boy....that's it.

[drogulus]

     Eric, do you think that if a religion appeals to you it's more likely to be true? I think this would be the case only if the truth of it could be judged independently of what you like about it. It's like folk medicine where you take a potion which relieves your symptoms and then ask the shaman how/why it works and get some "metaphysical" reply. 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.

Well I can assure you that Catholicism will never beckon to me. It never really did actually. I simply had some of its rituals performed on me as a boy....that's it.

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

[71 dB]

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.

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

[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.

[karlhenning]

None of the above.

In any event, it could not possibly be anywhere near as horrible, deluded or depressing as the OP.

[Bulldog]

In any event, it could not possibly be anywhere near as horrible, deluded or depressing as the OP.

I was going to say something like the above, but I hesitated in calling the OP horrible.  However, he certainly is deluded and depressing.

[71 dB]

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.

It seems Elgar's greatness is the only thing we agree about... 

No, wait! We both admire baroque music too!  0:)

Philosophy is science, not something "spiritual". Science is successful because it is the right way to gain information and understanding. Science does not only "predict events", it's even more important implication is the way it make us understand things, even spiritual ones. Science shows our place in the universe and the limits and the frame that defines our existence. Science explains why evolution made us spiritual and religious. It also tells us that we no longer need religion because over the time scientific conception of the world has become so much better, accurate, beneficial and intellectually satisfying than any religion. The problem is not in science trying to explain spiritual things, it's religion trying to tackle scientific questions. While doing so, religion damages human mind.

Spiritual world is subordinate to physical reality. We don't need religion for spiritual aspects. I have been an atheist all my life and I am just as spiritual person as anyone. However, my scientific conception of the world tells my all spirituality has physical background and is scientifically explicable. How advanced science it takes is another story. I'm sure anthropologists know a lot already.

[Josquin des Prez]

None of the above.

What is it then?

[drogulus]

Spiritual world is subordinate to physical reality. We don't need religion for spiritual aspects. I have been an atheist all my life and I am just as spiritual person as anyone. However, my scientific conception of the world tells my all spirituality has physical background and is scientifically explicable. How advanced science it takes is another story. I'm sure anthropologists know a lot already.

     I agree in general, however:

     Some people can only conceive of spirit in a dualist framework. For them religion is an efficient vehicle, as it is for ethics as well. So religion can be seen as a very survivable container for ideas that have learned to travel together, so to speak. Do you really want to answer all these questions separately? Well, you and I, maybe, but what about the majority?

     Likewise, would you like to decide every economic and political issue independently or would you prefer to be a liberal or conservative and pick your fights within those parameters? I choose to be a liberal and define my differences from there.

     So it's only partly a matter of which ideas are true (for some ideas this is all that matters) and partly which ideas help to make life easier and more fulfilling regardless of whether a truth value can appropriately be put on them. My thermostat tells me what the temperature is and I tell it what temperature is good, so we have a nice partnership with no misunderstandings.

[Dr. Dread]

There are seven gods. Send me money and I'll tell you who they are. In the meantime, chop wood, carry water.

[karlhenning]

There are seven gods. Send me money and I'll tell you who they are. In the meantime, chop wood, carry water.

Syemero Ikh!  Syemero Ikh!  Syemero Ikh!  Syemero Ikh!  Syemero Ikh!  Syemero Ikh!

Syemero Ikh!   0:)

[Dr. Dread]

[Elgarian]

Philosophy is science, not something "spiritual".

1. I didn't say that philosophy is 'spiritual'; I think maybe you're arguing there with something you think I said - not with what I actually said; I won't try to defend a position that I don't hold.

2. I think that to equate philosophy with science is to rob both words of their meaning. I think if you were a logical positivist (it sounds as if you might be inclined that way), then I suppose you'd maintain that scientific questions were the only questions that can be meaningfully asked, but that's just one particular 'branch' of philosophy, as it were.

The whole thrust of my post was to question the value of these 'religion versus science' debates, and in that respect I don't have anything to add to my earlier post; so I don't think there's anything we can usefully discuss here, really.

[karlhenning]

2. I think that to equate philosophy with science is to rob both words of their meaning.

Hear, hear.

[Elgarian]

There are seven gods. Send me money and I'll tell you who they are. In the meantime, chop wood, carry water.

My cheque is in the post.

[Dr. Dread]

My cheque is in the post.

Thanks. Once it clears, I will reveal all to you in a dream.

In the meantime, here's a freebie: One of the gods is named Squint-eye and he is the god of tobacco, firearms and alcohol.

[karlhenning]

Thanks. Once it clears, I will reveal all to you in a dream.

Aw, man, Daverino, just when we had this whole "intellectual property" thing all taped out . . . .

[Dr. Dread]

Aw, man, Daverino, just when we had this whole "intellectual property" thing all taped out . . . .

Am I trespassing? If so, I blame the man with the flaming sword down on Hennepin and 6th.

[karlhenning]

(Hmm . . . flaming sword . . . see Opus 94 . . . .)

[Dr. Dread]

(Hmm . . . flaming sword . . . see Opus 94 . . . .)

No. I think his name was "Schmidty".

[ChamberNut]

Cotton breathes more than Polyester.

Food for thought.

[Bulldog]

What is it then?

An admirable movement that resulted in a Jewish homeland.  Are you thinking of moving there?

[Elgarian]

Cotton breathes more than Polyester.

Just as well, I'd say. If it were the other way round, we'd be a dangerous step closer to polythene-ism.

[Elgarian]

In the meantime, here's a freebie: One of the gods is named Squint-eye and he is the god of tobacco, firearms and alcohol.

Just a moment. Is He one of the Seven? If He is, then I've been diddled, because everyone knows Him now, even though they didn't pay. On the other hand, if He isn't one of the Seven, but an Eighth, then you couldn't have been honest when you said there were Seven.

Either way, I'm starting to doubt the veracity of your claims, and I am not a little worried about my cheque; not to mention being anxious about potential issues concerning my abuse of capital letters.

[drogulus]

      You people are not serious. 

     

     

[Josquin des Prez]

An admirable movement that resulted in a Jewish homeland.

Interesting perspective. Zionism is the only right-wing, nationalistic movement that is seen as "admirable" in this age of rabid globalism, social marxism and utopian multiculturalism. If i were to speak of Europe as the rightful homeland of the white peoples, i'd be classified as a supremacist. Could you please explain to me why is it ok for Israel to be an homeland for the Jews, where as Europeans are seen as racist when they complain about the erosion of their ethnic identity through mass immigration? Israel for the Jews, Europe for the world?

[Bulldog]

Could you please explain to me why is it ok for Israel to be an homeland for the Jews, where as Europeans are seen as racist when they complain about the erosion of their ethnic identity through mass immigration?

Do you think those complaining Europeans are racist?

[Josquin des Prez]

Do you think those complaining Europeans are racist?

Of course. We all know white people are the cancer of the earth, and the sooner they face extinction, the better.

[karlhenning]

Eric, in general your tendency to create a new anti-Christianity rant-thread at about every new moon got tiresome somewhere around 2001.  OTOH, you come up with lines like this:

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

This is truly funny.  (I see it delivered by Richard Pryor, ca. 1977.)

Free-thinking monotheism, for me.

[Bulldog]

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

I think that polytheism is perfect for you.  If a particular god doesn't tickle your fancy at some point in time, you can look to alternative deities and become entirely confused. 

You need to focus and snap out of your doldrums.

[Dr. Dread]

Just a moment. Is He one of the Seven? If He is, then I've been diddled, because everyone knows Him now, even though they didn't pay. On the other hand, if He isn't one of the Seven, but an Eighth, then you couldn't have been honest when you said there were Seven.

Either way, I'm starting to doubt the veracity of your claims, and I am not a little worried about my cheque; not to mention being anxious about potential issues concerning my abuse of capital letters.

Picky. 

[Dr. Dread]

You people are not serious. 

Isn't that one of the ten commandments?  "Thou shalt not be serious."

[drogulus]

   

     

[drogulus]

Isn't that one of the ten commandments?  "Thou shalt not be serious."

     No, I think it's "Thou can'st be serious!". You have the Revised McEnroe Version, correct?

[Wanderer]

Eric, in general your tendency to create a new anti-Christianity rant-thread at about every new moon got tiresome somewhere around 2001.

Oh, yes.

Although polytheism went out of fashion a long time ago, maybe the original poster would be interested to know there are still some like-minded people in Greece today; they have a club, scantily attired priestesses and everything. Perhaps he'd be interested in making contact with them instead of daydreaming here? 

[david johnson]

   

     

snow white was a polydwarfist.

[Elgarian]

   

Question for Mn Dave: Are these the Seven? And is Squint-eye the One in the bed?

[drogulus]

     She's a freethinker. Now she will pay.....

[Florestan]

Although polytheism went out of fashion a long time ago, maybe the original poster would be interested to know there are still some like-minded people in Greece today; they have a club, scantily attired priestesses and everything. Perhaps he'd be interested in making contact with them instead of daydreaming here? 

He might have a strong interest in some used peplums, methinks.

[Dr. Dread]

Question for Mn Dave: Are these the Seven? And is Squint-eye the One in the bed?

I'm not returning your money.

[karlhenning]

I'm not returning your money.

Just as the prophet foretold!

[Dr. Dread]

Just as the prophet foretold!

p-r-o-f-i-t 

[Elgarian]

Just as the prophet foretold!

Verily. But the prophet spake in a language most strange, and the people heard his words, but they did not understand. And they wrote them in a Great Book, and yea, thus are the words written:

Hiho. Hiho. Itsofftu were queego.


[Dave? You got any queegoes for sale?]

[Dr. Dread]

Verily. But the prophet spake in a language most strange, and the people heard his words, but they did not understand. And they wrote them in a Great Book, and yea, thus are the words written:

Hiho. Hiho. Itsofftu were queego.


[Dave? You got any queegoes for sale?]

I'm sure something can be arranged. 

[Wanderer]

He might have a strong interest in some used peplums, methinks.

At first glance I thought you were referring to veils, but even so... 

I'm not returning your money.

Do I smell lawsuit in the air? 

[karlhenning]

Do I smell lawsuit in the air? 

I thought the only one here who seriously supposes he can take the Almighty to court to redress grievances is the OP?  0:)

[Wanderer]

I thought the only one here who seriously supposes he can take the Almighty to court to redress grievances is the OP?  0:)

I believe there's also been a case in Italy but I can't recall the details. 

[Wilhelm Richard]

Could you please explain to me why is it ok for Israel to be an homeland for the Jews, where as Europeans are seen as racist when they complain about the erosion of their ethnic identity through mass immigration?

I think the answer to that is obvious and I am shocked none of the intellectuals on this forum have cared to enlighten you!  It is because...wait...well...because...well...you know...um...and...and then...um...oh yeah...wait...because...well....................................................................how could you not know?...it just is, ok?

[Wilhelm Richard]

Of course. We all know white people are the cancer of the earth, and the sooner they face extinction, the better.

Amen to that, all they do is bring everyone else down with their fancy music, running water, sophisticated medicine, and a pesky gravitation towards civilization and all of its so called "benifits"...they must be stopped before it is too late.

[Wilhelm Richard]

And "Would Polytheism Be Better For Us?"  I will answer that question with a question...

Would dousing ourselves with gasoline and striking a match rather than going for a jog on sunny day be better for our health?

[Dr. Dread]

Would dousing ourselves with gasoline and striking a match rather than going for a jog on sunny day be better for our health?

Let me pause for reflection...

[ChamberNut]

Let me pause for reflection...

As you sing "Stuck in the Middle with You". 

[karlhenning]

Hah, Ray!

[drogulus]

      Perhaps we should send the Jews back to Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Poland and Germany where they belong. We could make a rule that all nations founded unjustly are to be dissolved and the inhabitants have to return to the lands of their ancestors.

And "Would Polytheism Be Better For Us?"  I will answer that question with a question...

Would dousing ourselves with gasoline and striking a match rather than going for a jog on sunny day be better for our health?

    The Europeans should have gone jogging in 1939. They didn't exactly douse themselves with gasoline, at least they didn't think of the victims as themselves, because they were the wrong sort of monotheist. Now the survivors who moved to Palestine are charged before history for having racist motives in creating an ethnic state. The defense should point out that ethnic and religious minorities are full citizens in that state, with representatives in the parliament. How many Jews will be represented in the new Palestinian state? Will they be allowed to live there? To move there? To become citizens? And will Christians be allowed to practice their religion in independent Palestine? What about atheists? Will they be free and full citizens? Maybe we should look around the region and see if we can find an example of a multiethnic, multireligious state with minority rights. Where should we look?

[The new erato]

      Perhaps we should send the Jews back to Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Poland and Germany where they belong. We could make a rule that all nations founded unjustly are to be dissolved and the inhabitants have to return to the lands of their ancestors.

Wow. As the US are cleansed for the benefit of the indians, Norway would triple its population. I can rent out some rooms at ridiculously high rates and quadruple my CD collection in no time!

[Wilhelm Richard]

(In case clarification was needed)
Through sarcasm, I was attempting to express how foolish a move to polytheism would be.  Harming oneself with gasoline would be just as stupid. (but as a monotheist, I may be biased)
I am not entirely sure what that has to do with the Jewish State of Israel, but I will say this briefly (hoping not to divert the attention of this thread's subject)...if the Jews can have one (granted, Jews aren't the only ones who get to function there, but they are the overwhelming majority) why cannot/should not anybody else?

[Josquin des Prez]

Perhaps we should send the Jews back to Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Poland and Germany where they belong. We could make a rule that all nations founded unjustly are to be dissolved and the inhabitants have to return to the lands of their ancestors.

Nobody has called for a dismantling of the state of Israel. There is an Israel today, and nobody can change that. Much like there is an America today, despite the fact the nation was created by means of ethnic cleansing, a fact which the Americans simply cannot be forgiven for and have to be reminded of constantly. What an interesting double standard. On one side, we have an admirable movement that has resulted in the creation of a vibrant democracy by displacing a bunch of backward barbarians, wheres the other can't go on living without wringing constantly over having created a vibrant democracy by displacing a bunch of backward barbarians. But wait, Israel was created as an haven for a persecuted people, so everything it does is morally justified, even if it goes against international law.

The Europeans should have gone jogging in 1939.

Nota bene, all criticism of Israel can be silenced by citing this one single accident. It doesn't matter whether Israel's human rights record is a disaster. It doesn't matter whether they have conducted themselves like a marauding, apartheid state, causing an infinite amount of unrest in the middle east which has had severe repercussions all over the world. It doesn't even matter that unscrupulous Jewish organizations have bastardized the memory of this singular event by running a veritable Holocaust Industry, thus validating the money grubbing stereotype of this peculiar people in the grossest possible manner. All can be pardoned, when you are a victim of persecution and genocide.

At the same time, because of this very same event and several other horrors which have been committed by evil Europeans (or so our liberal media tells us), it is only natural if Europe itself is destroyed, its national borders corroded, its cultural identity attacked and suppressed, it's very people silently led to ethnic suicide. I mean, look at all the horrors that have been perpetrated by Europeans. Colonialism, slavery, the Holocaust. It is only just that they should die, for that is their atonement to the perpetration of such unmeasurable sins! And woe to those who dare to rise up against this just retribution, for to speak for the welfare of evil Europeans it is to condone all the horrors they have inflicted upon the world.

The defense should point out that ethnic and religious minorities are full citizens in that state, with representatives in the parliament. How many Jews will be represented in the new Palestinian state? Will they be allowed to live there? To move there? To become citizens? And will Christians be allowed to practice their religion in independent Palestine? What about atheists? Will they be free and full citizens? Maybe we should look around the region and see if we can find an example of a multiethnic, multireligious state with minority rights. Where should we look?

That's right. Palestinians have it coming for being a backward, barbaric people. The sooner Israel manages to exterminate those desert rats, the sooner the rest of the world can start breathing. What rights can those people possibly have, why, they are barely even human!

[drogulus]

(In case clarification was needed)
Through sarcasm, I was attempting to express how foolish a move to polytheism would be.  Harming oneself with gasoline would be just as stupid. (but as a monotheist, I may be biased)
I am not entirely sure what that has to do with the Jewish State of Israel, but I will say this briefly (hoping not to divert the attention of this thread's subject)...if the Jews can have one (granted, Jews aren't the only ones who get to function there, but they are the overwhelming majority) why cannot/should not anybody else?

      It's commonly believed that it would be better to die than believe something different from what mom and dad believe right up to the day before you actually change your belief, and then you would rather die before you change again, until you do. All of this overstate peoples knowledge about what they believe as well as the consequences of changing.

      Bias isn't something that worries me, and it doesn't change things much. A zealot with a good argument would be formidable. The arguments aren't usually all that good.  And no, I don't really see any more benefit in becoming polytheist than there would be in becoming a different sort of monotheist. There are some benefits associated with atheism, though I don't think they are available to anyone who becomes one. I don't really want people to become atheists, because most people can't manage it. I want them to reasonably free to become atheists, so that if they can be nothing stops them. If you are one of the people who think you might become one or want to (which might indicate an ability in that direction) then what I say about it might provide a nudge. For all the monos/polys who don't have that interest, I'm more concerned about behavior. Believe what you want, just don't persecute others. And if your child shows promise of leaving the village of belief for the wider world of thought, don't try to interfere.

     I don't think everyone having their own state is a good thing. The best that can happen is to improve the existing ones. The creation of a new state is bound to have tragic consequences.

   

accident

     You confuse a moral justification with the amoral course of history. The creation of states is never an exercise in justice. My approach is to try to improve the least bad thing and avoid the worst consequences.

     

That's right. Palestinians have it coming for being a backward, barbaric people. The sooner Israel manages to exterminate those desert rats, the sooner the rest of the world can start breathing. What rights can those people possibly have, why, they are barely even human!

     That would be more consistent with your ideology than mine. I want a democratic Palestine with rights for minorities alongside a democratic Israel. And if the people of these states at some point decide to create a single state with rights for all and no ethnic or religious language written into their constitution I'd be pleased. That seems rather utopian at this stage.

[Wilhelm Richard]

Believe what you want, just don't persecute others.

Makes sense.
Sadly, as the presence of God is denied in more and more circles, many (not all, but quite a few) of those who do not "believe" take it upon themselves to criticize those who do, calling their beliefs ignorant and blaming them for all that is wrong in the world, citing a few negative examples in human history.

"God Himself, sir, does not propose to judge a man until his life is over. Why should you and I?"

[david johnson]

Wow. As the US are cleansed for the benefit of the indians, Norway would triple its population. I can rent out some rooms at ridiculously high rates and quadruple my CD collection in no time!

nah, the indians have to go back to asia.

dj

[drogulus]

Makes sense.
Sadly, as the presence of God is denied in more and more circles, many (not all, but quite a few) of those who do not "believe" take it upon themselves to criticize those who do, calling their beliefs ignorant and blaming them for all that is wrong in the world, citing a few negative examples in human history.

"God Himself, sir, does not propose to judge a man until his life is over. Why should you and I?"

    What's wrong with attacking beliefs? This is very curious. My position is really simple. I advocate a classic liberal position which has always been based on a freedom of belief that is incomprehensible without an underlying rationale that most beliefs are not true, but that people ought to be free to hold them. Believers, OTOH, always insist in one way or another that people should believe the one true bullshit and tolerate freedom of thought only for as long as they might prosper under it, until the blessed day when freedom is abolished forever. You think that what's wrong with the world is that everyone has their own idiotic belief instead of your idiotic one. I think what's wrong with the world is that no matter which of the idiot systems prevails people who think like you will be in the majority, so all the rest of us can do is to try and sell you on the idea that we would all be better off for now if eveyone had rights. This actually works, even for the majority who often think the right to believe makes the beliefs right.

[karlhenning]

I can sign on for poly-tea-ism.

[greg]

nah, the indians have to go back to asia.

dj

not to mention so many people have maybe 1 or 2 ancestors that are Indian (like me) so how would you work that out? Maybe divide it specifically- like, cut off my finger and leave it here and then send the rest of me to someplace in Europe? (preferably Germany...)

[Elgarian]

I can sign on for poly-tea-ism.

How does the song go?

"Poly put the kettle on, Poly put the kettle on ... etc"
Is that Poly-tea-ism?

[Josquin des Prez]

You confuse a moral justification with the amoral course of history. The creation of states is never an exercise in justice.

My rant isn't against the alleged immorality of the creation of Israel, but the fact it is only Europeans and Europeans alone that have to bear the scorn of the "amoral course of history".

And if the people of these states at some point decide to create a single state with rights for all and no ethnic or religious language written into their constitution I'd be pleased. That seems rather utopian at this stage.

No, no and no. One Israel, one Palestine, each run by a single ethnic and cultural paradigm, each able to fulfill it's own unique destiny. It isn't merely utopian, it is suicidal. No nation or civilization on earth has survived or thrived under "diversity". One body, one mind. One culture, one destiny. That is the core of my "ideology". The hatefulness of it all...

[Josquin des Prez]

freedom of belief

Except when it comes to people like me. An oddly selective conception of freedom that. You are free to question all dogma, except for our dogma.

[snyprrr]

I skipped here to the last page...oh, not talking polytheism anymore (which I was only going to say, seems "redundant")?

Poor Josquin always seems to be fighting alone here (I haven't read the thread yet). I have "painful questions" to ask sometimes, but I suppose I also struggle with cowardice...not wanting to ruffle the gentry. I suppose a name change and a visit to a more politically oriented forum...

red meat like bait hangs before me...or, is that "enough" rope?

[greg]

Let's all form a cult and just believe in belief.

[Lethevich]

Let's all form a cult and just believe in belief.

I believe Theosopy got there first...

[Wanderer]

An interesting thing to note (and something I don't see mentioned at all) is the recurring motif of the original poster starting a new (mostly ridiculous and inflammatory) thread such as this only to disappear in the shadows reveling in the disturbance it might cause. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone stopped answering altogether to the initial inanities; would he be forced to answer his own questions? 

Personally, I'm going to effect this tactic more rigorously from now on.

[The new erato]

I can sign on for poly-tea-ism.

On a beautiful sring day like this I'd rather go for poly-tee-ism.

Which is the proper way to respond to inflammatury threads like this. Wanderers observations are well taken.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Wanderer,

I have wanted to reply to several members here DAYS ago but I've been so incredibly busy at work all this week.

Even this post of mine is being sent from my Blackberry as you can see from the top left.

Later this afternoon I will have more time since it's my day off.

[The new erato]

You are back! And probably still unrepentant!

[karlhenning]

. . . but I've been so incredibly busy at work all this week.

Excellent!

[Wilhelm Richard]

    What's wrong with attacking beliefs? This is very curious. My position is really simple. I advocate a classic liberal position which has always been based on a freedom of belief that is incomprehensible without an underlying rationale that most beliefs are not true, but that people ought to be free to hold them. Believers, OTOH, always insist in one way or another that people should believe the one true bullshit and tolerate freedom of thought only for as long as they might prosper under it, until the blessed day when freedom is abolished forever. You think that what's wrong with the world is that everyone has their own idiotic belief instead of your idiotic one. I think what's wrong with the world is that no matter which of the idiot systems prevails people who think like you will be in the majority, so all the rest of us can do is to try and sell you on the idea that we would all be better off for now if eveyone had rights. This actually works, even for the majority who often think the right to believe makes the beliefs right.

I thought we may have reached a compromise, but I do not believe that is the case. 

When the Christian attacks the beliefs of the atheist, he is an ignoramus, but when the atheist attacks the beliefs of the Christian, he is an intellectual.  So you don't think that after this has gone on for a little while, the Christian just might become a little defensive and, because the tenants of his religion (thanks to Ol' King James) or fairly clear to him, make them known to those who criticize? (this is not inviting to hold up and attack the various semantical differences relating to Christianity as a whole).  If you do not want to be attacked, do not invite the battle.  I, for one (like many I know), do not make it my life's goal to press my religion upon others.  Put when we are challenged, we will not take the abuse for long.

[Wilhelm Richard]

"Would Polytheism Be Better For Us?"

Obviously not...I think it is very clear that it would only confuse the issue. 

[Florestan]

If you do not want to be attacked, do not invite the battle.  I, for one (like many I know), do not make it my life's goal to press my religion upon others.  Put when we are challenged, we will not take the abuse for long.

Amen, brother!

[Bulldog]

When the Christian attacks the beliefs of the atheist, he is an ignoramus, but when the atheist attacks the beliefs of the Christian, he is an intellectual. 

I feel that attacks from either side are inappropriate and give off a stench of intolerance.  It is funny how each side feels that the other side dumps on them.  Just stop the attacks, follow your own beliefs and show a little respect for others.

As for our OP working hard in recent weeks, that's great.  It likely stops him from his usual regimen of thinking far too much about very little.

[greg]

I believe Theosopy got there first...

Excellent!

lol @ both

[Homo Aestheticus]

Guido,

Why believe in the supernatural at all?

Here is a concise argument for the existence of a supreme being(s) that I've read on this forum. It was written by Al Moritz:

"Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else. In the case of the theist it is God, in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter (that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere). The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".

[Homo Aestheticus]

I think that polytheism is perfect for you.  If a particular god doesn't tickle your fancy at some point in time, you can look to alternative deities and become entirely confused. 

Don,

You and many others here are misconstruing my original post... Also Karl, this is not an "anti-Christianity" thread.

All I'm saying is that as far as the problem of evil is concerned I find the polytheistic 'explanation' much more reasonable than the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Judao-Christian God...which is just narrow-minded and not very natural.

As Lefkowitz writes:

The existence of many different gods also offers a more plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away.

****

Why makes this absurd but monotheism 'correct' ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Eric, do you think that if a religion appeals to you it's more likely to be true? I think this would be the case only if the truth of it could be judged independently of what you like about it. It's like folk medicine where you take a potion which relieves your symptoms and then ask the shaman how/why it works and get some "metaphysical" reply.

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.

Precisely... Now here is my question:

How is it that a fully grown and rational human being can take the doctrines and rituals of organized religion so seriously ?  Don't they understand that their religious books were written by flawed humans over many centuries ? Why can't they simply put their faith in reason and weigh all options ?  Why do they find the Judao-Christian God so compelling  ?  And why aren't Plato and Aristotle 'comforting' enough for them ?

Why can't they simply say: "I don't know"... in response to most of life's basic questions ?

Have they never glanced at a history of philosophy book and come away with some appreciation of the complicatedness of so many issues ?

These people truly dumbfound me sometimes.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Ernie,

So what is deluded about a nationalist movement that succeeded in creating the state that was its goal?

Why did the Jews have the right to displace certain people and create their own state in 1948 ?

All they had to do was hold up their religious book which claims that they are special in the eyes of God and that God is also a type of real-estate broker.  Aren't those the bottom-line reasons ?

Does that sound right to you ?  This is why I find the whole matter very depressing.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Thomas,

Through sarcasm, I was attempting to express how foolish a move to polytheism would be.

Although I am generally not a fan of their political/cultural views, Kirsch and Vidal makes some good observations here:

Nothing in human nature suggests the inevitability of the notion that there is only one god. On the contrary, men and women in every age and throughout the world have offered worship to literally thousands of gods, goddesses and godlings, male and female alike, and they still do. Only very late in the development of Homo religiosus did monotheism - "one-god-ism" - first emerge, and whenever some visionary king or prophet sought to impose the worship of one deity to the exclusion of all others, he would discover that ordinary people so cherished their many beguiling gods and goddesses that the very idea of monotheism was appalling. That is why the very first recorded experiment in monotheism was an abject failure, and polytheism has survived every effort to destroy it.

But, fatefully, monotheism turned out to inspire a ferocity and even a fanaticism that are mostly absent from polytheism. At the heart of polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there are many gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single god exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the only proper way to worship the one true god. The conflict between these two fundamental values is what I call the war of God against the gods - it is a war that has been fought with heart-shaking cruelty over the last thirty centuries, and it is a war that is still being fought today.

The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved --Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal --God is the omnipotent father-- hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is in place not for just one tribe but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth. One God, one King, one Pope, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family home.

http://www.enotalone.com/article/6760.html

http://www.isebrand.com/Gore_Vidal_Monotheism_1992.htm

[snyprrr]

Maybe 1948 had more to do with 1899 than...

and, How is polytheism NOT redundant?

I like to think these questions will all be answered whensoever after the questionee takes their last breath. Of course, according to some, by then it may be too late.

So,ya gotta ask yourself, ya feel lucky?
21grams.

I believe that unbelievers will never understand believers, but believers were usually unbelievers once, and so, should be that much more willing to go the extra mile with the unbeliever.

ARE there atheists in foxholes?

[Guido]

Guido,

Here is a concise argument for the existence of a supreme being(s) that I've read on this forum. It was written by Al Moritz:

"Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else. In the case of the theist it is God, in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter (that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere). The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".

Yeah, I just don't buy it though; to me it's a false dichotomy. I'm still sort of astonished, as I was at the time when this was first posted, at how clear cut and certain Al was about this - where that comes from, I'm not sure - and I don't think that there are many physicists who would be so certain as to lay out the supposed options like this...

Even if we accept that there might be a supernatural creator, I think the evidence that that being has interacted with humans is extremely poor indeed (or any other supernatural phenomena happening in the physical world for that matter - psychics, lycanthropy, resurrections etc. etc.), and all arguments that I have seen trying to link an impersonal creative force with some benevolent moral promulgator have been exceedingly weak, sometimes laughably so.

[snyprrr]

That's why it's called faith.

Physicists seem to be just as hard to pin down to a "yes" or "no" as politicians are. I mean, they'll tell you, they don't know WHAT's going on. The amount of faith they place in their ideas can seem astronomical! And they (and psychiatrists and lawyers) are the high priests of the modern world, the people in whom we place OUR faith?

How DO you get a rose from a rock?

Yes, methinks once the questioners realize how much literal faith they place in the mechanisms of classical evolutionary "theory", they might start to realize that believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny would be just as viable an alternative as getting a rose from a rock.

[snyprrr]

also...

If our universe is up to, what, 23 dimensions, or wot not, then the creator of that universe would have to be an entity of at least 24 dimensions, so...I don't know why us mere 3Ders would even care to argue about the subject.

[Guido]

That's why it's called faith.

Physicists seem to be just as hard to pin down to a "yes" or "no" as politicians are. I mean, they'll tell you, they don't know WHAT's going on. The amount of faith they place in their ideas can seem astronomical! And they (and psychiatrists and lawyers) are the high priests of the modern world, the people in whom we place OUR faith?

How DO you get a rose from a rock?

Yes, methinks once the questioners realize how much literal faith they place in the mechanisms of classical evolutionary "theory", they might start to realize that believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny would be just as viable an alternative as getting a rose from a rock.

You are very wrong about evolutionary theory, which is not a theory of physics for a start, and is also one of the most overwhelmingly verified theory in all of science. And I don't think too many people put their trust in physicists.

[mahler10th]

Hark, fundamental Christians!!!
Hark!!
I am an angel mesenger unto you!!

Read these passages...

Exodus 20:3
Deuteronomy 10:17, 13:2
Psalm 82:6
Daniel 2:47

Which God is yours?

[Florestan]

Had we lived in a polytheistic civilization, the OP would have surely asked: "Would monotheism be better for us?" 

When this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question:

Would Arianism be better for us?

[Elgarian]

Physicists seem to be just as hard to pin down to a "yes" or "no" as politicians are. I mean, they'll tell you, they don't know WHAT's going on.

I'm a physicist, and I can confirm that I don't have a clue what's going on.

The amount of faith they place in their ideas can seem astronomical!

Well, I can't speak for other physicists, but I don't have faith in any of the 'ideas' in physics. 'Faith' isn't an appropriate response to them. (That's why this eternal 'religion v science' conflict is misconceived; it's based on what seems to be a series of category errors.)

[DavidRoss]

That's why this eternal 'religion v science' conflict is misconceived; it's based on what seems to be a series of category errors.

An intelligent comment.  How rare and unexpected on these threads. 

When this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question:  Would Arianism be better for us?

As usual with Eric's threads, the topic was exhausted years ago.  For him and his fellow rocket scientists who never tire of beating this dead horse with their willfully ignorant prejudices, the next question is not whether Arianism is better for us, but whether Onanism is all they're capable of.

[karlhenning]

Had we lived in a polytheistic civilization, the OP would have surely asked: "Would monotheism be better for us?" 

When this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question:

Would Arianism be better for us?

My question:

Would Pelleastrianism be better for us?

Oh! Dave got there first:

. . . whether Onanism is all they're capable of.

[Wilhelm Richard]

Hark, fundamental Christians!!!
Hark!!
I am an angel mesenger unto you!!

Read these passages...

Exodus 20:3
Deuteronomy 10:17, 13:2
Psalm 82:6
Daniel 2:47

Which God is yours?

I would like to leave this thread on the humorous note sounded by the last few posters, but I feel this post warranted response.

The verses cited above are in fact examples of references to various "gods" (not "Gods") that our Angel Messenger is not the first to point out.  This subject has been addressed often and is explained that in Ancient Israel, the idea of many false gods had not yet been completely eradicated (hence the "no other gods before me" business).  They would, however, come to understand that Monotheism was/is the Way.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Deuteronomy 4:35
II Kings 19:18
Psalms 82:6
Psalms 96:5
Ephesians 4:6
James 2:19
I Corinthians 8:6
I Timothy 2:5

Take this brother...may it serve you well.

[karlhenning]

Take this brother...may it serve you well.

John Lennon, wasn't that?

[Wilhelm Richard]

Close... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wCJ9WmX9Zw

[Wilhelm Richard]

Though he doesn't say it, he may very well have written it.

[snyprrr]

(That's why this eternal 'religion v science' conflict is misconceived; it's based on what seems to be a series of category errors.)

That's what I meant to say .

Still like to know how you get a rose from a rock. The "first" cell?

So...how's the weather on the West coast these days? My, it's just raining here, and yes, uncle John is fine, thanks for asking.

Why do people who don't drink milk walk funny?


Cause the lack toes.


There, the thread ends humorously. Continue at your own peril.

[c#minor]

yes, of course polytheism is better for us. Then we can all follow the one true way of Wicca. My personal favorite gods are the Horn God (obviously), and the Triple Moon Goddess.

[karlhenning]

. . . and the Triple Moon Goddess.

That's the signature cocktail of a local Thai restaurant.

[DavidRoss]

Triple Moon Goddess?

[karlhenning]

Triple Moon Goddess?

Of whom, no doubt, Arthur Frampton is a devotee.

http://www.youtube.com/v/TbN9doxZusQ

[Elgarian]

My personal favorite gods are the Horn God (obviously), and the Triple Moon Goddess.

Interesting Fact number 746:

On the island of Triplikos, where the inhabitants count to base three, there are 10 Triple Moon Goddesses.

Not many people know that.

[Guido]

Still like to know how you get a rose from a rock. The "first" cell?

A huge amount of literature on this, and it's not strictly part of evolutionary theory, but Al (on this foum) has written a very nice introduction to the subject which I can't currently locate (he's a christian, don't worry!).

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Had we lived in a polytheistic civilization, the OP would have surely asked: "Would monotheism be better for us?" 

Not at all.... Again, monotheism does a horrible job of explaining the staggering differences among humans.

When this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question:

Would Arianism be better for us?

Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ?  I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...

And one more thing: Plato believed in the gods.  If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Guido,

Even if we accept that there might be a supernatural creator, I think the evidence that that being has interacted with humans is extremely poor indeed (or any other supernatural phenomena happening in the physical world for that matter - psychics, lycanthropy, resurrections etc. etc.), and all arguments that I have seen trying to link an impersonal creative force with some benevolent moral promulgator have been exceedingly weak, sometimes laughably so.

I agree but what do you make of the following:

a. Unless there is a benevolent supernatural being, there probably cannot be objectively binding moral obligations.

b. Objectively binding moral obligations exist.

c. Therefore there probably is a benevolent supernatural being.

[Homo Aestheticus]

For him and his fellow rocket scientists who never tire of beating this dead horse with their willfully ignorant prejudices.

What are you talking about ?

I happen to find the arguments for the existence of the Judao-Christian God and the truth of their texts invalid... How does that make me willfully ignorant ?

[Wilhelm Richard]

Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ?  I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...

Arianism ≠ Aryanism

[Florestan]

Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ?  I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...

One more proof --- if needed --- that your knowledge about Christianity and its historical development is very weak. Arianism has nothing to do with race or ethnicity and, as WR pointed out, should not be confused with Aryanism

And one more thing: Plato believed in the gods.  If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.

Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky believed in God. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Have you ever read Plato? I mean, not newspaper commentaries about Plato, but his own work.

[Renfield]

Plato seemed to believe in the divine, loosely construed, and away enough from the prevalent dogma of the time as to have based one of his most elegant arguments on 'the good' around the possibility that it (the good) predates the gods, partly implying that the common-belief gods would then be unnecessary. His own view would seem to have been closer to pantheism, from where I see it.

(This in a nutshell since he was brought up, and according to my reading of him ('reading' as in 'interpretation') - needless to say, I am not a leading classical scholar! But I am somewhat allergic to good philosophy being mangled; even potentially, and/or by accident.)

[Josquin des Prez]

Religion for the Greeks was something different from what we imagine. In it's highest manifestation, the religious feeling of the Greek reached to Homer. The Greeks were an artistic race (unlike the Romans, who never understood the Greeks, no matter how much they borrowed from them), and for them religion was yet another form of artistic expression. Try some of the great dramatists, like Sophocles for instance. It is in those works that the religious spirit of the Greek shines the brightest, and it is a great and noble spirit.

[Franco]

What are you talking about ?

I happen to find the arguments for the existence of the Judao-Christian God and the truth of their texts invalid... How does that make me willfully ignorant ?

Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man.  The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person.  However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.

Your choice.

[Bulldog]

Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man.  The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person.  However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.

Your choice.

I'm chuckling at the above, because that's exactly how my wife sees the matter. 

[ChamberNut]

Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man.  The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person.  However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.

Your choice.

So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"?  Believe in religion, only because of fear?

[Lethevich]

So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"?  Believe in religion, only because of fear?

One billion catholics can't be wrong

[DavidRoss]

So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"?  Believe in religion, only because of fear?

See Pascal's Wager.  It's about belief in God, which has nothing to do with religion.

[ChamberNut]

One billion catholics can't be wrong

Right.  Just misled.

From a former Roman Catholic.

[karlhenning]

One billion catholics can't be wrong

Oh, dear . . . .

[karlhenning]

Just a note, friends Sara & Ray:  that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).

Somewhere in his dank darkness, the whingemeister is smiling now.

[Bulldog]

Just a note, friends Sara & Ray:  that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).

Somewhere in his dank darkness, the whingemeister is smiling now.

I won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is.  More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused.

[DavidRoss]

Just a note, friends Sara & Ray:  that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).

But Eric's not all negative, Karl.  Don't forget the other topics of his perennial obsessions:  praise for Wagner, Debussy's P&M, and the aroma of women's panties.

[karlhenning]

I won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is.  More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused.

. . . and starting threads is just his way of saying Hello!

[Frumaster]

How is it that a fully grown and rational human being can take the doctrines and rituals of organized religion so seriously ? 

Without something irrational, there is no leap of faith, and there is subsequently no religion.  If you could explain it, you wouldn't be able to believe in it.  As for rituals, maybe it just makes people feel good?  Religion is an inward, personal thing....rituals don't pose any benefits here, but maybe there's a coolness factor you're missing.

Don't they understand that their religious books were written by flawed humans over many centuries ? Why can't they simply put their faith in reason and weigh all options ? 

Yes.  To put faith in reason would eliminate all religious options.  Believing in something you can't reason away is the whole point of religion.  How could you be passionate about 2+2=4?

Why do they find the Judao-Christian God so compelling  ?

Its a pretty damn good story for one, and the Old Testament consists of some remarkable writings if studied from any perspective.  

[karlhenning]

Don't they understand that their religious books were written by flawed humans over many centuries?

I love Eric's whingeing "don't they understand" questions . . . they're like knock-knock jokes!

[DavidRoss]

I love Eric's whingeing "don't they understand" questions . . . they're like knock-knock jokes!

And Eric questioning others' understanding is like Josquin explaining "genius." 

[karlhenning]

And Eric questioning others' understanding is like Josquin explaining "genius." 

(* vacuums tea out of computer keyboard *)

[DavidRoss]

Sorry, Karl.

Eric's right!  Polystyrenism is better for us!

I have it on good authority from the Big Fellow pictured below:

[karlhenning]

Inexplicably, I am overcome with an intense desire to visit a coffee shop . . . .

[Guido]

How could you be passionate about 2+2=4?

Because beauty=truth?

Guido,

I agree but what do you make of the following:

a. Unless there is a benevolent supernatural being, there probably cannot be objectively binding moral obligations.

b. Objectively binding moral obligations exist.

c. Therefore there probably is a benevolent supernatural being.

This argument seems the wrong way round to me - with that line of reasoning and thought - b would usually follow from c rather than the other way round - why would you suppose they exist before deciding why they exist? And there have been many moral systems suggested that do not require supernatural authority - lots of people think these work, I have no strong opinions on them. Essentially I don't buy (b), and again even if it was true I'm not sure how clear it is that (a) was true.

[Elgarian]

Polystyrenism is better for us!

Polystyrenism is really just Polythenism with a load of hot air mixed in. It's a lightweight religion, by comparison.

[DavidRoss]

Not only is Eric's preposterous syllogism above false (c does not follow from a and b), but a and b are ludicrous premises.  It's typical of what passes for reason with Eric, however.  

If there are no flying unicorns, then there are no tangerine-flavored BS detectors.
There are tangerine-flavored BS detectors.

But even if the second premise were factual instead of just another empty assertion, that still would tell us nothing about flying unicorns since even if the first premise bore any relationship to reality then flying unicorns would still be only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for tangerine-flavored BS detectors.

See the following instructional video on critical thinking by Eric's logic tutor:
http://www.youtube.com/v/zrzMhU_4m-g

Polystyrenism is really just Polythenism with a load of hot air mixed in. It's a lightweight religion, by comparison.

[Elgarian]

If there are no flying unicorns, then there are no tangerine-flavored BS detectors.

Well, this old and battered BS detector on the table by my side has always tasted distinctly of tangerine. I am watching the skies.

[DavidRoss]

Well, this old and battered BS detector on the table by my side has always tasted distinctly of tangerine. I am watching the skies.

Carry a stout umbrella.

[Frumaster]

Because beauty=truth?

Great, but there are subjective thruths too, which allow room for passions, which in turn affirm our existence.  Objective truths do none of these things but enslave us. 

[greg]

And one more thing: Plato believed in the gods.  If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.

lol didn't everyone believe in "the Gods" back then?
Either way, I still find it amusing how such a smart person like him could believe in imaginary fairy tale Zeus... i wonder if he ever questioned whether Zeus was real or not? And if he did, probably the only reason he didn't express doubts was because of fear? (maybe, that he might end up like Socrates and just wanted to live?) idk...

[mahler10th]

Polytheism would lead to wars.
Then we'd have to consult the Taoist "Art of War".
Then we would all be living the Tao.
  Hurrah!!

[Josquin des Prez]

lol didn't everyone believe in "the Gods" back then?
Either way, I still find it amusing how such a smart person like him could believe in imaginary fairy tale Zeus... i wonder if he ever questioned whether Zeus was real or not? And if he did, probably the only reason he didn't express doubts was because of fear? (maybe, that he might end up like Socrates and just wanted to live?) idk...

Plato didn't believe in the "gods", but he did have a metaphysical understanding, and much of his thinking in that direction was influenced by the ancient Indians (who possessed the greatest metaphysics in the history of mankind), something not everybody seems to know.

People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.

It is also common for liberals to reduce religion to the superstition of the simple man. A lesser mind will never be able to fully understand the forces that drive his own nature and guides his experiences in life, so he ascribes simple meanings to things which for him or her appear to be vague and mysterious, sometimes terrifying. Yet, do you really believe that superstition is all there is to religion? Then why is it that considerably greater minds then the average man have demonstrated religious feelings? How could a genius like Dostoevsky believe in the bible, unless he found something in it which compelled even a mind such as his? Do you sense superstition when you read Crime and Punishment? Was superstition the primary theme in a film like Andrei Rublev? Things just aren't what they seem...

[Elgarian]

People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.

I think there's something worthwhile in this paragraph trying to get out, but it's obscured by the misleading first two sentences. I see no reason to link liberalism with relativism in this way. If there is a real universal truth out there beyond the world of the physical senses (let's say), then our separate understandings of it are likely to be different, because incomplete; indeed, our knowledge of the diversity of understandings expressed by other human beings tells us that they are different. A liberal response is the only sensible outcome of such an outlook, which is neither materialistic, nor relativistic (because the existence of an absolute is acknowledged).

[greg]

Plato didn't believe in the "gods"

Really? That's good to know, it'd make more sense if he didn't. I'm going to read more of his writings, so I guess I'll learn more about this...

[Xenophanes]

Plato didn't believe in the "gods", but he did have a metaphysical understanding, and much of his thinking in that direction was influenced by the ancient Indians (who possessed the greatest metaphysics in the history of mankind), something not everybody seems to know.

People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.

It is also common for liberals to reduce religion to the superstition of the simple man. A lesser mind will never be able to fully understand the forces that drive his own nature and guides his experiences in life, so he ascribes simple meanings to things which for him or her appear to be vague and mysterious, sometimes terrifying. Yet, do you really believe that superstition is all there is to religion? Then why is it that considerably greater minds then the average man have demonstrated religious feelings? How could a genius like Dostoevsky believe in the bible, unless he found something in it which compelled even a mind such as his? Do you sense superstition when you read Crime and Punishment? Was superstition the primary theme in a film like Andrei Rublev? Things just aren't what they seem...

You're quite right.  I don't know that Plato got his metaphysics from the East Indians.  I still don't.  Neither do I accept that they had the greatest metaphsyics ever--which metaphysics, one might ask?

I have no idea what a consciousness stretched toward the ether might be, and fail to see the expression makes any sense whatsoever.

I don't give much cognitive value to religious feelings of people, no matter how great.

[Elgarian]

I have no idea what a consciousness stretched toward the ether might be, and fail to see the expression makes any sense whatsoever.

I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think your statement is a good illustration of the point he's trying to make. His 'consciousness stretched towards the ether' is a metaphor; but to get any sense out of a metaphorical statement like 'the camel is the ship of the desert', we need to be aware of certain aspects of camels, ships, and deserts, otherwise it seems like nonsense - as his expression would also, if we have no conception of what he means by 'the ether'.

[Contrapunctus666]

Of all beliefs that I saw on the Internet, this one seems to be very intelligent:

http://www.anus.com/zine/philosophy

Back to the topic:

Religion doesn't matter. How it affects our lifes DOES. I don't have time to type what I think but this guy has written some smart articles about the Paganism:

http://www.burzum.com/burzum/library/text/ (total 15 articles)

I think that it is important to understand the first article before reading these Paganism articles.

cheers

[Josquin des Prez]

http://www.anus.com/zine/philosophy

Ho good grief, NOT anus.com.

[Xenophanes]

I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think your statement is a good illustration of the point he's trying to make. His 'consciousness stretched towards the ether' is a metaphor; but to get any sense out of a metaphorical statement like 'the camel is the ship of the desert', we need to be aware of certain aspects of camels, ships, and deserts, otherwise it seems like nonsense - as his expression would also, if we have no conception of what he means by 'the ether'.

Do you have a conception of what he means by "the ether?"  If so, please explicate. I am only too well aware it is meant as a metaphor, but it is not a metaphor which makes a great deal of sense to me as it presupposes worldviews which I and many others in the modern world, do not share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

If you know what point he was "trying to make," please tell us what it is.

[Elgarian]

If you know what point he was "trying to make," please tell us what it is.

Actually, that isn't the point that I was trying to make. I'd prefer him to answer for himself, but I think he's trying to describe a certain kind of experience - an extension of consciousness/awareness, which he can only express metaphorically as 'stretched towards the ether'; and he's acknowledging that this won't make sense unless you do have a certain kind of world view: the implication may be that one needs to experience this 'extension into the ether' rather than be persuaded by argument.

[Xenophanes]

Actually, that isn't the point that I was trying to make. I'd prefer him to answer for himself, but I think he's trying to describe a certain kind of experience - an extension of consciousness/awareness, which he can only express metaphorically as 'stretched towards the ether'; and he's acknowledging that this won't make sense unless you do have a certain kind of world view: the implication may be that one needs to experience this 'extension into the ether' rather than be persuaded by argument.

He expects me to share the worldview of the ancient Greeks? Or whatever?

[Catison]

We must all invoke the metaphysical at some point to survive.  Science doesn't equal Truth for free, you know...

Anyways, have you seen Polythene Pam?

[Elgarian]

He expects me to share the worldview of the ancient Greeks? Or whatever?

No. I don't think he expects anything at all - and that's the point he's making. I think it's the same kind of situation Blake is talking about in his famous bit of dialogue:

"When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somehwat like a guinea?"
"Oh no, no, I see an innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying 'Holy, Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty'"

It's no use the questioner asking for further clarification in terms of his own world view. It isn't to be had. The only way to 'understand' what Blake is saying is to try somehow to enter his world view. We may of course not wish to do that - but in making that decision we exclude any possibility of understanding what he's saying.

I think something of that sort is what Josquin de Pres is getting at. But it would be much better coming from him, than me. I'm just trying to explain how I see it.

[Xenophanes]

No. I don't think he expects anything at all - and that's the point he's making. I think it's the same kind of situation Blake is talking about in his famous bit of dialogue:

"When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somehwat like a guinea?"
"Oh no, no, I see an innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying 'Holy, Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty'"

It's no use the questioner asking for further clarification in terms of his own world view. It isn't to be had. The only way to 'understand' what Blake is saying is to try somehow to enter his world view. We may of course not wish to do that - but in making that decision we exclude any possibility of understanding what he's saying.

I think something of that sort is what Josquin de Pres is getting at. But it would be much better coming from him, than me. I'm just trying to explain how I see it.

Well, at least Blake was speaking in an idiom still used. An acquaintance of mine is a retired English professor, something of an expert on Blake.  I heard him give a talk on him, but aside from snatches, Blake has never much appealed to me.  He has a whole system makes little sense to me. But "Holy, Holy, Holy" is from the liturgy, the Sanctus, which is taken roughly from Isaiah 6:3.  So Blake is explaining his reaction to the sun in terms of images he has learned from his tradition, and some of this tradition is still alive today.  Actually, he notes two ways of looking at the rising sun, one in terms of sensible awareness and another in terms of his faith and perhaps vision. We also have different ways of looking at the sun and other things, through our senses, through our sciences, through poetry and art, through our faith. But ether?

[Xenophanes]

First let me say that I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, having been baptized as an infant and receiving Holy Communion at the age of 8 but in my late teens I could no longer take the Judao-Christian worldview seriously.... I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis.

On the other hand I can't reject belief in supernatural beings and do find the idea of polytheism to be rational... At least a better overall reflection of the real world.

I recently came across this interesting piece and found a lot to agree with:

http://www.ethnikoi.org/lefkowitz.htm

Here are some of her statements:

1. The poison is  not  religion; it's monotheism.

2. The Greeks and Romans did not share the narrow view of the ancient Hebrews that a divinity could only be masculine. Like many other ancient peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Greeks recognized female divinities.

3. Humans were free to speculate about the character and intentions of the gods. By allowing them to ask hard questions, Greek theology encouraged them to learn, to seek all the possible causes of events. Philosophy -- that characteristically Greek invention -- had its roots in such theological inquiry. As did science.

4. In the monotheistic traditions, in which God is omnipresent and always good, mortals must take the blame for whatever goes wrong, even though God permits evil to exist in the world he created.

5. The god of the Hebrews created the Earth for the benefit of humankind. But as the Greeks saw it, the gods made life hard for humans, didn't seek to improve the human condition and allowed people to suffer and die. There was no hope of redemption, no promise of a happy life or rewards after death.

6. The existence of many different gods also offers a  more  plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away.

7. Greek theology openly discourages blind confidence based on unrealistic hopes that everything will work out in the end.

*******

Do you agree with some of these viewpoints and/or see advantages to them ?

There has been some criticism of Lefkowitz's article, and I found this one on the net.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-capetz10nov10,0,2789423.story?coll=la-opinion-center

I fail to see that the history shows polytheism has been notably peaceful and tolerant.  The empires of the ancient Middle East encouraged the worship of their own high gods.  Of course, they assimilated the gods and traditions of others and changed them (but then, the scholars say the ancient Hebrews did, also).  I once read J. B. Bury's History of Greece, and that history was not notably peaceful, even though they shared the Olympian pantheon.  There were many wars in East Indian history, too.

The Greek gods did not stand up very well to criticism from my own good self (modest blush) and other even greater philosophers and poets.

1) I have already dealt with this one.

2) Female gods or no, the ancient societies were pretty much male dominated. The ancient Hebrews did attribute a number of femine traits to God and Yahweh (ask Phyllis Trible!).

3) There is something to this.  According to one major interpretation (Cornford), Greek philosophy did originate in attempts to come to a rational interpretation of religion.  But we also have to remember that John Burnet thought the early Greek philosophers (presocratics) were basically natural scientists.  But there are other ways of looking at them, too, and I don't regard them as mutually exclusive.

However, anyone who thinks the ancient Hebrews did not ask questions simply hasn't looked into the matter seriously.  There are a number of different viewpoints expressed in the Bible and other ancient Jewish literature, and some of them come under strong criticism in Job and Ecclesiastes, as prime examples.

Moreover, Jewish and Christian traditions did assimilate philosophy as well, and it is in Christian Europe that a good deal of science developed.

4) It is true that many people find evil difficult to reconcile with a good God, and as mentioned, but it is not necessary to say that human beings are responsible for everything that goes wrong.  Some have maintained this, but others have not. And as I suggested, the authors of Job and  Ecclesiastes seem well aware that they do not know how to explain this.

5) The Greek view does seem pretty hopeless to us, so stated. On the other hand, the ancient Hebrews did not have a hope of life after death.  (You might read C. Lewis's book on the Psalms, or any standard reference work.)  However, the Greeks also had traditions (notably the Mysteries) which offered hope of happiness after death, and this much influenced some of the Greek philosophers, notably the Platonists.  Indeed, this strain seems to have influenced later Judaism.

6) Certainly many people do find great evils difficult to reconcile with their own concepts of God.  As I have pointed out, this is already in Judaeo-Christian tradition.  Divergent powers and aims can result in evil, but one need not go to the gods to find an explanation.  Polytheism is, after all, is speculatively unsatisfactory. 

One could arrive at a different conception of God, for example, in which God is not all powerful but limited in power and function, as is the god in Plato's Timaeus.  Process philosophy and theology tend to such a view.

On the other hand, it could be that God's ways are not our ways, and cannot be held to human standards. 

7)  A typical Greek view is to keep your head down, don't stand out.  That's hybris and the Greek gods frown on that. I'm not sure that leads to improvements in life.

[karlhenning]

I fail to see that the history shows polytheism has been notably peaceful and tolerant.

Quoted for truth.

[DavidRoss]

I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis.

There's something pathological in your persistent belief that statements like this are about objective reality rather than about the limits of your own intellect and imagination.

[karlhenning]

Word.

[Elgarian]

He [Blake] has a whole system makes little sense to me.

That's why I chose Blake as my example; because there's a reasonably close parallel there, and Blake is a great artist, so I thought maybe there was a better chance of getting to the root of the business. In this case you have knowledge of a tradition that you can use to rationalise what he's saying, but Blake would call that 'single vision' (the first step towards what he calls 'fourfold vision'). He's not interested in that; he's interested in seeing beyond it. To the rationalist there is no 'beyond it' - and therein lies the problem.

But ether?

Well, I don't agree that it's completely unintelligible. The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well.

[Florestan]

it is in Christian Europe that a good deal of science developed.

It is in Christian Europe that the main deal of science developed; this is a fact that no amount of intellectual acrobacy will ever be able to circumvent.

[Florestan]

Ho good grief, NOT anus.com.

Oh, but it's very appropriate for all that BS. 

[karlhenning]

[ no sniff zone ]

[Florestan]

[ no sniff zone ]

  ;D

[ChamberNut]

[ no sniff zone ]

For most......I hope! 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Don,

An admirable movement that resulted in a Jewish homeland. 

This past Sunday there was an article in The Guardian that gave an excellent perspective now and which shows why I often find it depressing and sometimes deluded.

Many Jews no longer believe that the Zionist concept of entitlement, based first upon Biblical history, and latterly upon the Holocaust, suffices to justify perpetuating historic injustice upon the Arabs of Palestine. Benny Morris's excellent recent history of the events of 1948 shows that even a respected Israeli historian is today ready to acknowledge the scale of Israeli ethnic cleansing at the time, and of the deceits employed since to conceal what took place. The Israeli myth, that the Palestinians displaced in 1948 voluntarily abandoned their homes and property, is unsustainable in the face of such evidence.

The paradox of Israel's pursuit of might

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/israel-middle-east-max-hastings

[Homo Aestheticus]

Karl and Don,

Just a note, friends Sara & Ray:  that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).

I won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is.  More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused

Excuse me but what is wrong with questioning my Judao-Christian heritage ? And how are my opening and subsequent posts 'Catholic-bashing' ?

"First let me say that I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, having been baptized as an infant and receiving Holy Communion at the age of 8 but in my late teens I could no longer take the Judao-Christian worldview seriously.... I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis."

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky believed in God. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Yes, of course and they were awesome writers but they were also second-rate intellects compared to Plato, Spinoza and Hume.

Have you ever read Plato? I mean, not newspaper commentaries about Plato, but his own work.

I have 3 books on Plato on my bookshelf: A Introduction to The Republic by Julia Annas (Oxford University Press), The Laws, and  Philebus. How much was I able to comprehend ? Not a lot....    But for some reason I still get a warm and fuzzy feeling when reading him. The lack of dogmatism and his always setting out to follow wherever the argument may lead is so appealing. 

[Homo Aestheticus]

There's something pathological in your persistent belief that statements like this are about objective reality rather than about the limits of your own intellect and imagination.

Why pathological ?

Are you really able to accept the 4 attributes of the Judao-Christian God - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence - without any problems ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Franco,

Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man.  The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person.  However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.

Your choice.

This is a bit silly I think.... I am not convinced that the monotheistic religions makes people more moral or allows them to truly become themselves.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Frumaster,

Without something irrational, there is no leap of faith, and there is subsequently no religion.  If you could explain it, you wouldn't be able to believe in it.  As for rituals, maybe it just makes people feel good?  Religion is an inward, personal thing....rituals don't pose any benefits here, but maybe there's a coolness factor you're missing.

Yes.  To put faith in reason would eliminate all religious options.  Believing in something you can't reason away is the whole point of religion.  How could you be passionate about 2+2=4?

Its a pretty damn good story for one, and the Old Testament consists of some remarkable writings if studied from any perspective.  

That is all probably true but still don't you believe that the  philosophical worldview  is richer and the best way for humanity to go ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Drogulus,

Here is a letter by Einstein written a year before his death:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are better protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1951333/Einstein-thought-religions-were-childish.html

What do you make of it and was he being platitudinous here in your view ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

It is in Christian Europe that the main deal of science developed; this is a fact that no amount of intellectual acrobacy will ever be able to circumvent.

Yes but a question if I may:

Do you believe that the Christian religion, as represented in  The Sermon on The Mount  and  The Lord's Prayer  is the truth... the ultimate truth ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Xenophanes,

There has been some criticism of Lefkowitz's article, and I found this one on the net.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-capetz10nov10,0,2789423.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Thanks for the link and the the replies... But I'd like to know what you make of Richard Dawkins when he says that theology shouldn't even be considered a real subject ?

[Josquin des Prez]

But I'd like to know what you make of Richard Dawkins when he says that theology shouldn't even be considered a real subject ?

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.

[Josquin des Prez]

He expects me to share the worldview of the ancient Greeks? Or whatever?

No, i expect you to share the worldview employed by western intellectuals, from Plato to Schopenhauer, before the worship of mechanics replaced real thought and reduced the human mind into a boring atomata, a mere collection of processes, unable to comprehend anything that any machine wouldn't comprehend.

[Bulldog]

Karl and Don,

Excuse me but what is wrong with questioning my Judao-Christian heritage ? 

FWIW, the problem isn't that you question your heritage but that you question everything, leave it all hanging in the air and end up without any foundation. 

[Bulldog]

Don,

This past Sunday there was an article in The Guardian that gave an excellent perspective now and which shows why I often find it depressing and sometimes deluded.

Many Jews no longer believe that the Zionist concept of entitlement, based first upon Biblical history, and latterly upon the Holocaust, suffices to justify perpetuating historic injustice upon the Arabs of Palestine. Benny Morris's excellent recent history of the events of 1948 shows that even a respected Israeli historian is today ready to acknowledge the scale of Israeli ethnic cleansing at the time, and of the deceits employed since to conceal what took place. The Israeli myth, that the Palestinians displaced in 1948 voluntarily abandoned their homes and property, is unsustainable in the face of such evidence.

The paradox of Israel's pursuit of might

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/israel-middle-east-max-hastings

That's one article expressing the views of one person.  If you stopped reading this stuff, you might find yourself less depressed and deluded.

[Florestan]

I have 3 books on Plato on my bookshelf: A Introduction to The Republic by Julia Annas (Oxford University Press), The Laws, and  Philebus. How much was I able to comprehend ? Not a lot.... 

That's a very frank and commendable admittance of your little knowledge about Plato's philosophy.

But then you come up with this:

Yes, of course and they were awesome writers [Pascal, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky] but they were also second-rate intellects compared to Plato, Spinoza and Hume.

Eric, be honest until the end: you have no clue about anyone of the above (or anyone else or any other topic, for that matter) other than truncated, half-digested quotes from newspaper articles or little understood books about them. You hide your pathological inability of thinking and  acting  on your own behind the authority of some of the greatest minds in Western philosophy, with which you have in common nothing except belonging to the same species.

You have written a lot of ridiculous things in the last few years, but your assessing Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky as "second-rate intellects" beats them all.

Enough is enough, don't you think?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

You are right and I should not have characterized them as 'second-rate'... What I meant to say is that they haven't contributed as much to our understanding as Plato, Spinoza and Hume.

[Florestan]

Andrei,

You are right and I should not have characterized them as 'second-rate'... What I meant to say is that they haven't contributed as much to our understanding as Plato, Spinoza and Hume.

Eric, you're very fond of using "we", "us", "our"... What did Spinoza contribute to your understanding?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Eric, you're very fond of using "we", "us", "our"... What did Spinoza contribute to your understanding?

That we can save ourselves by always striving to be objective and rational and that getting our passions under control is all-important.

[Florestan]

getting our passions under control is all-important.

Do you practice that?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Do you practice that?

No...

Practicing the Spinoza philosophy is very hard... It's very high-minded. 

[Florestan]

No...

Practicing the Spinoza philosophy is very hard... It's very high-minded. 

Then please, stop parading this or that philosopher as if you were a devoted disciple.

[Guido]

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

[karlhenning]

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

Well, everyone oversimplifies, doesn't he?

[Xenophanes]

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

I beg your pardon!

[karlhenning]

I beg your pardon!

Sure; but Guido was simply taking the thread as an occasion for scorn upon people of faith; which is entirely in harmony with the OP.  Doesn't especially become him, to disregard Eric's long (and godawfully tedious) track record.  But then, we endure it with a patient spirit.

[DavidRoss]

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum.  Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.

[Xenophanes]

No, i expect you to share the worldview employed by western intellectuals, from Plato to Schopenhauer, before the worship of mechanics replaced real thought and reduced the human mind into a boring atomata, a mere collection of processes, unable to comprehend anything that any machine wouldn't comprehend.

I find it strange you cannot actually tell me anything about that alleged worldview.

So what is that worldview shared by Western intellectuals from Plato to Schopenhauer? I think that period witnessed a number worldviews.  Besides, a lot has happened since Schopenhauer, and after all, there is quite a variety in philosophy, theology, natural science, social sciences, and the arts since then.

Besides, I am not convinced that worldviews are all of a piece, anyway.  What is stretching to the ether supposed to mean?  Which meaning did you have in mind?

In any case, if you wish to communicate with modern people, you will have to speak in language they can understand.  For example, Christianity had to speak to people in their own languages, not just Hebrew or Aramaic, and the New Testament is in Greek and even quoted the Old Testament from a Greek translation.

[Elgarian]

What is stretching to the ether supposed to mean?  Which meaning did you have in mind?

I offered a possible interpretation of his metaphor in #190:

"The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well."

But I say again (trying not actually to take sides in this discussion, but just observing what's happening) that when two world views conflict (as here), it's unlikely that any progress can be made so long as both parties maintain entrenched positions. In this case, you're requiring that what one might call 'spiritual insights' (choose a better expression if you can think of one) be transposed into a rationalist world view; and however reasonable that may seem from your point of view, it can't be done. 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).

[Bulldog]

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

Well, it's a two-way street.  I find that folks at both ends of the spectrum can be rather nasty and disrespectful. 

[Brian]

I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?

[Bulldog]

I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?

The same as the purpose of every other thread about religion (pro or con) - verbal masturbation.

[DavidRoss]

I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?

Like virtually all the other threads having to do with religion, God, faith, spirituality, etc--most of which are started by Eric--the purpose is to ridicule and sneer at people of faith, Christians particularly.

[Wilhelm Richard]

I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?

Slapped and slapped and slapped again.
The thread began as a question between polytheism and whateverism and became a general debate on the nature of religion...Unfortunately, comments such as...

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

...are tolerated when...

An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum.  Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.

...actually seems to be the case.

I cite a moderator's previous post that states that "views offensive to the majority of the board that are frequently aired are regarded as spam and against the interests of this board and the majority of its members." 

The "discussion" (as it is currently being continued) should be ended as many potentially less harmless discussion topics have been.  For some, religion can be the most important aspect of their life, more important than their views on, say, race or the State of Israel (for example).

[Homo Aestheticus]

Brian,

The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.

[Xenophanes]

I offered a possible interpretation of his metaphor in #190:

"The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well."

But I say again (trying not actually to take sides in this discussion, but just observing what's happening) that when two world views conflict (as here), it's unlikely that any progress can be made so long as both parties maintain entrenched positions. In this case, you're requiring that what one might call 'spiritual insights' (choose a better expression if you can think of one) be transposed into a rationalist world view; and however reasonable that may seem from your point of view, it can't be done. 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).

I do not think that spiritual insights are confined to just one world view.

What makes you think I am a rationalist?

[karlhenning]

Brian,

The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism . . .

A bizarre purpose, but entirely characteristic.

. . . and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.

You are at your very funniest when you are being smug, and in accusing others of the selfsame vice!

[Bulldog]

Brian,

The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.

But you have only shown that you're adrift and unsettled.

[Gurn Blanston]

Brian,

The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.

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).

That statement has griped my cookies since you first started this thread, and now I have got it off my chest. Thanks for the impromptu therapy session, Eric.

[karlhenning]

We are amused.

[Xenophanes]

Xenophanes,

Thanks for the link and the the replies... But I'd like to know what you make of Richard Dawkins when he says that theology shouldn't even be considered a real subject ?

What does he know about it?  

Here is Dawkins' interview (7 parts) with an eminent astronomer, Father George Coyne, the former head of the Vatican Observatory, who among other things, is a critic of intelligent design.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=965C53D2B4BCCCF5

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?  Anyway, a nice conversation.

[Elgarian]

I do not think that spiritual insights are confined to just one world view.

Neither do I. It doesn't have a bearing on what I was saying.

What makes you think I am a rationalist?

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.

[greg]

Why pathological ?

Are you really able to accept the 4 attributes of the Judao-Christian God - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence - without any problems ?

that's what I'm wondering...

[karlhenning]

"Without any problems" just isn't the "gotcha" that Eric imagines it to be.

[karlhenning]

Is acceptance of divine omnibenevolence a "problem"?  I shouldn't think so.

And (by the bye) here is a divine attribute, where I fail to see polytheism as at all "superior."  There (I should think) the "selective benevolence" is more obviously a moral problem.

[Fëanor]

Man, this is a great thread.  Of course all discussions about religion are great in that -- after are all the rational arguments have been explored -- irrational belief prevails.  I find this perversely amusing. 

An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum.  Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.

That's the great thing about being a Christian (or other religionist), is when you hear someone who professes the same religion but doesn't agree with you, you can just say the he/she isn't a "real" Christian, (Hindu, Buddist, Jew, whatever).

[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?

[karlhenning]

You keep changing the ground.

Ah, I see you've met Eric!

[Homo Aestheticus]

You keep changing the ground. 

I am sorry Xenophanes, but I've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism and the Jewish lobby.

[Bulldog]

I am sorry Xenophanes, but I've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism and the Jewish lobby.

So, what's your next move?  Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it, or are you just going to keep wagging your tongue?

[Josquin des Prez]

So, what's your next move?  Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it, or are you just going to keep wagging your tongue?

Nota bene, when threatened with reprisal for your bad behavior, never fail to mention the final solution.

[Homo Aestheticus]

So, what's your next move?  Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it ?

Not at all.

The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei, Xenophanes and other Christians here,

A question:

Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's  Ethics ?

Here is a brief overview:

"Spinoza abjured both the God of Israel and the people of Israel, and replaced his old religion with an audacious faith in the supreme power of human reason. Spinoza's radicalism begins in his critique of religion. In the anonymously published  Theological-Political Treatise, he insists on the distinction between philosophy, which aims at truth, and theology, which aims, he says, at obedience. He revolts against revelation as a source of truth, and rejects fundamental doctrines like divine providence, free will, reward and punishment, election, the possibility of miracles, and the immortality of the soul. Although Hobbes, in his Leviathan, had already taken a swipe at the Mosaic authorship of the "Five Books of Moses," Spinoza more or less fathers biblical criticism by rejecting the Bible's divine authorship. Though he stops well short of endorsing a religion-free polity, and though he cautions against expressing such an opinion to the masses, Spinoza deems adherents to organized religion slavish and superstitious. He articulates a radical determinism that banishes purpose and contingency and chance, and allows into the world no arbitrary or spontaneous events. (It is in this sense that Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God.") He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature. This God-or-Nature, this infinite substance outside of which nothing exists, is eternal, necessary, self-caused, self-sufficient, perfect, and perfectly indifferent to us"

******

What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ? 

[Xenophanes]

Andrei, Xenophanes and other Christians here,

A question:

Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's  Ethics ?

Here is a brief overview:

"Spinoza abjured both the God of Israel and the people of Israel, and replaced his old religion with an audacious faith in the supreme power of human reason. Spinoza's radicalism begins in his critique of religion. In the anonymously published  Theological-Political Treatise, he insists on the distinction between philosophy, which aims at truth, and theology, which aims, he says, at obedience. He revolts against revelation as a source of truth, and rejects fundamental doctrines like divine providence, free will, reward and punishment, election, the possibility of miracles, and the immortality of the soul. Although Hobbes, in his Leviathan, had already taken a swipe at the Mosaic authorship of the "Five Books of Moses," Spinoza more or less fathers biblical criticism by rejecting the Bible's divine authorship. Though he stops well short of endorsing a religion-free polity, and though he cautions against expressing such an opinion to the masses, Spinoza deems adherents to organized religion slavish and superstitious. He articulates a radical determinism that banishes purpose and contingency and chance, and allows into the world no arbitrary or spontaneous events. (It is in this sense that Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God.") He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature. This God-or-Nature, this infinite substance outside of which nothing exists, is eternal, necessary, self-caused, self-sufficient, perfect, and perfectly indifferent to us"

******

What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ? 

Well, Spinoza would have you seek peace of mind and control over your emotions, as did the Stoics, but you don't seem to be there.

I've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism and the Jewish lobby.

That seems to be good advice, as you seem to need to come to terms with whatever is bothering you.  No one can really do that for you.

I'm not an expert on Spinoza, but I have in the past read a bit of him and some of the histories of philosophy.

I know Spinoza has some place in the history of biblical criticism (most of which has been carried out be religious believers, contrary to the summary provided).  It is easy enough to doubt Moses wrote the Pentateuch (it recounts his death, for one thing), but others seem to have had more to do with actually analyzing and coming up with four bodies of literature in it providing different presentations and theologies is another.  He doesn't seem to have had much to do with that.

Spinoza appears to expect philosophy to achieve salvation in the intellectual love of God.  Such projects are exceedingly difficult, and so are open only to elites, not the common people. 

I believe Christianity is more of a bhakti or devotional and practical religion, and as such is open to ordinary people. 

[Florestan]

What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ? 

The individual promoted by Spinoza is a cold, objective, never-weeping, never-laughing, always rational, passionless and lifeless robot.

My sympathy goes entirely with the full humanity of Dostoyevsky, whose heroes are the exact opposite of the Spinozian machines: they are hot, subjective, they weep, they cry, they are sometimes irrational, they are passionate, and life pulsates in their every thought and action.

I'd rather have dinner with Ivan Karamazov than with... wait, I can't think of any embodiment of the Spinozian ideal. So I guess I'll invite Myshkin as well.

[Catison]

Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's  Ethics ?

Jesus was not only a religious figure, but a historical figure.  This is unique among world religions.  So if we examine the evidence of the gospels in the New Testament as a statement of historical fact, we find that Jesus was in fact God.  Being Catholic, I also believe that Jesus himself established a Church (as it is written by St. Matthew), and this Church proclaims the truth of the New Testament as it extends beyond the historical representation of Jesus  in the gospels to the theology of St. Paul's epistles through Revelation.  This is somewhat different the protestant understanding of the Bible, for which is a matter of faith that it contains truth.  Of course, that is not to say that the Catholic understanding does not involve faith, but that it is a different faith.

[Bulldog]

The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?

Could be there are many people like you.

[Guido]

Jesus was not only a religious figure, but a historical figure.  This is unique among world religions.  So if we examine the evidence of the gospels in the New Testament as a statement of historical fact, we find that Jesus was in fact God.  Being Catholic, I also believe that Jesus himself established a Church (as it is written by St. Matthew), and this Church proclaims the truth of the New Testament as it extends beyond the historical representation of Jesus  in the gospels to the theology of St. Paul's epistles through Revelation.  This is somewhat different the protestant understanding of the Bible, for which is a matter of faith that it contains truth.  Of course, that is not to say that the Catholic understanding does not involve faith, but that it is a different faith.

Erm... Mohammed?

[Catison]

Erm... Mohammed?

Mohammad never claimed to be God.  And, as far as I understand it, the Quran is not historical, because it was dictated to him by the angel Gabriel.  What is unique about Jesus is that his authority is not based on a written text, but upon actions.  Jesus did not write a word of the Bible, of course, but the historical nature of the New Testament (a limited historicity, as this was not its primary purpose) is a witness to these actions.

[Guido]

You're not going to deny that he was a historical figure though are you? (which was my contention)

The Haddith, the Sunnah?

[Catison]

You're not going to deny that he was a historical figure though are you? (which was my contention)

The Haddith, the Sunnah?

No, I'm not denying that he was historical in that he actually existed.  I am saying that his religious theology is not based on a historicity.  Sorry, I realize I wasn't be very clear.

[Guido]

Ah, I see! I think we've argued on this board about the historicity of the new testament before, so lets not bother to do it again! 

[karlhenning]

Not at all.

The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?

You find hostility in every forum you frequent... Why is that?

Socrates said it best: The unexamined life is not worth living.  Some of us are too busy whingeing to examine the life we live.

[karlhenning]

Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's  Ethics ?

Why "as opposed to"?

[karlhenning]

. . . He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature.

Which is either pointless (since there is alread the word, Nature) or a statement of faith ("I believe that God is just Nature").  Christians (we can probably say, to tie this in with your nominal subject-header, all monotheists) believe in a God Who created Nature.  In the Christian view, then (nor should it take any great imagination on your part to have understood long, long before today, that this is the Christian view, but you've never yet displayed any talent for actually listening to anyone whose opinion you do not perceive — rightly or wrongly — as neatly aligning with yours), to posit a God who is identical with nature, is not much different than to posit a watchmaker who is identical with the watch.

You do see that the latter viewpoint is an error?

[karlhenning]

Why "as opposed to"?

Mind you, one could conceivably find value in Spinoza's discussion of ethics, without endorsing his theology . . . .

[Fëanor]

...
The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?

Jews know perfectly well, though very few will admit, that it is their own sense of separation, their own sense of superiority, that has alienated them time and again from the indigenous populations amongst whom they live.

Does this justify the oppression they have suffered?  No, but it explains it.

[Fëanor]

Which is either pointless (since there is alread the word, Nature) or a statement of faith ("I believe that God is just Nature").  ...

The word is "Pantheism".  No, it is not at all the Judeo-Christian-Muslim perspective.

[karlhenning]

The word is "Pantheism".  No, it is not at all the Judeo-Christian-Muslim perspective.

Right;  and from my viewpoint, "It's just all God" is more problematic than (for example) "How can an all-powerful God be good, and yet permit evil in the world?"

[DavidRoss]

"How can an all-powerful God be good, and yet permit evil in the world?"

Yes, it's hard to understand why this question troubles anyone over the age of, say, fourteen.

[Bulldog]

Jews know perfectly well, though very few will admit, that it is their own sense of separation, their own sense of superiority, that has alienated them time and again from the indigenous populations amongst whom they live.

It's good to see that Feanor has the inside track on the knowledge that Jews possess.

[Catison]

Yes, it's hard to understand why this question troubles anyone over the age of, say, fourteen.

And yet it is the first of the Objections St. Thomas Aquinas gives to the article, "Does God exist?".  More interestingly, Thomas has only two objections, and the other is a not an actual proof against God, but merely says that God is superfluous.  It is not as if Thomas was unaware of other arguments, but that he thought that the "argument from evil" was the only real candidate as a proof against God.

His objection goes something like this:  Both a thing and its opposite cannot both be infinite.  God is infinitely good and therefore His opposite, evil, cannot exist.  Yet we see that evil does exist, therefore God does not exist.

He then proceeds to give his famous five proofs for God.  His reply the to the argument from evil is that the existence of evil is not a contradiction because God allows evil to exist so that He can work through it for good.  In other words, evil is somehow a part of God's infinite goodness although it is not created by Him.

Another way I have heard this objection is that if God is the highest creator and evil exists then God must have created evil, yet this is a contradiction.  The reply here is that evil is not a thing in itself but the absence of good, like a vacuum is not a thing but an absence of matter.  God then uses this moral vacuum as a conduit of His infinite goodness.

[karlhenning]

Well condensed, Brett.

[Fëanor]

Yes, it's hard to understand why this question troubles anyone over the age of, say, fourteen.

Possibly because there has never been a truly satisfactory answer.

[karlhenning]

Yes, it's hard to understand why this question troubles anyone over the age of, say, fourteen.

Possibly because there has never been a truly satisfactory answer.

Sure.

There remain questions of the significance of the dissatisfaction.

[DavidRoss]

Possibly because there has never been a truly satisfactory answer.

Free will.

[greg]

Could be there are many people like you.

You find hostility in every forum you frequent... Why is that?

Socrates said it best: The unexamined life is not worth living.  Some of us are too busy whingeing to examine the life we live.

I like these replies.

[Fëanor]

It's good to see that Feanor has the inside track on the knowledge that Jews possess.

Are Jews so inscrutable?  I think not:  I am a non-Jew but I have know hundreds of Jews, some on a very friendly basis, and I am passably familiar with Jewish history of many eras and locations.

[karlhenning]

Free will.

Free will is a problem.  Why should anyone be allowed not to love Stravinsky?! 

[Fëanor]

Free will.

Assuming it explains human evil, (which I don't necessarily grant), how does it explain natural evils: floods, earthquakes, tsunamis?

[karlhenning]

Assuming it explains human evil, (which I don't necessarily grant), how does it explain natural evils: floods, earthquakes, tsunamis?

Those are natural phenomena.  To call them "natural evils" is a moral misnomer;  they are evil not in "intent" (the flood has none), but we call them "evil" when human catastrophe is the result.

[Dr. Dread]

yah.

[greg]

Free will.

That's not very satisfactory if you think about it (and I've heard this answer a million times).

If I decided to create my own room of little action figures that come to life and have feelings and told them to worship me because I am their creator, that's fine. Let's just say that at first, they have no choice because they are programmed to. But after awhile, I'm getting hungry for some genuine affection, because I honestly deserved to be loved, for real, through choice. So, I make a separate group of toy soldiers that have feelings, and free will. I figure, hey, you know what- they better choose to worship me or else I'm going to tie them up onto a table and use a magnifying glass to direct the sun onto them, so they can slowly burn forever. If they choose me, then they'll just get pretty much the same as what the originals get (or roughly, who knows exactly).

It turns out I know which ones will not accept me before I even create them. So, I see their future lives flash through before my eyes, and then their eternal demise. Yet, I create them anyway because I love them.

What is love, by the way?

Love means being patient even when you'd like the other person to hurry up already!

Love means being kind when being mean might seem more satisfying.

Love means not being jealous -- of your spouse or of others.

Love means not being pompous or inflated, not thinking yourself so important.

Love means not being rude but rather speaking and acting with courtesy to everyone.

Love means caring about others before one's own self-interests.

Love means not showing one's temper, no matter how angry you are.

Love means not brooding, not holding on to hurts.

Love means not gloating when the other is wrong or makes a mistake.

Makes sense, right?

[Franco]

Love means never having to say you're sorry.  At least, that's what I've heard.

I think evil has gotten a bad rap - think of all the good that comes as a response to evil.  If there were no evil, we would be unable to determine what was good.  If there were no free will man could not choose to do good, thereby creating the moral choice.  There is no morality when there is no evil choice that is denied.

[karlhenning]

That's not very satisfactory if you think about it (and I've heard this answer a million times).

If I decided to create my own room of little action figures that come to life and have feelings and told them to worship me because I am their creator, that's fine. Let's just say that at first, they have no choice because they are programmed to. But after awhile, I'm getting hungry for some genuine affection, because I honestly deserved to be loved, for real, through choice. So, I make a separate group of toy soldiers that have feelings, and free will. I figure, hey, you know what- they better choose to worship me or else I'm going to tie them up onto a table and use a magnifying glass to direct the sun onto them, so they can slowly burn forever.

You're extrapolating a God Who thinks, What Would Greg Do?  

Your illustration (which, I am sure it has not escaped you, is a bit simplistic on a number of points) imputes a questionable motivation to God:  that He created us because He needs our love.  But God is perfect; there is nothing He lacks (and the love among Persons in the Trinity is — without being quite the polytheism which might be better for Eric — an example of Love in the Godhead, without a "need" to create Man in order for God to receive love).  It is true (in Christian thought) that God made Man to love Him, but it is an error to consider this a 'lack' in God, the way no one to love us as people would be a lack.

Could write pages and pages more . . . but just one thought further.  In your rather 'projective' image of God creating, you fall into the error of considering Hell a spiteful punishment which God resentingly imposes.  The idea is more that:  God is Love;  in other words, it is God's nature to act and think and dwell in love.  God created Man in His image:  Man is meant, also, to love, to act and think and dwell in a condition of love.  Where God by His Nature is incapable of Non-Love, Man by his nature is created for the purpose of Love, and yet has free will.  The exercise of one's free will in defiance of Love, is for Man to be 'broken'.  From one angle, Hell is the absence of Love.  God doesn't "send" anyone to Hell;  Men choose to go there.

[karlhenning]

I think evil has gotten a bad rap - think of all the good that comes as a response to evil.  If there were no evil, we would be unable to determine what was good.

That's an error, but it's also ground we've covered a hundred times before.

That's like saying that someone has to live in a blighted urban landsacpe, or else he could not appreciate the beauty of a forest.

[Dr. Dread]

Waiter: "Falefel, sir?"

Plato: "No! Philosopher!"

[Franco]

To my way of thinking it is more like if there were never any forest fires, we might value forests less.

But I'm sure you're right.  My bad.  I  guess.  Who knows what's good or bad anyway?

[Bulldog]

Are Jews so inscrutable?  I think not: 

There you go again.  Your fatal flaw is that you lump together individuals into a group and make pronouncements about the qualities and characteristics of all individuals in the group.  That's wrong-headed thinking that can lead to discrimination and even genocide.  Every individual is unique.  

[karlhenning]

Waiter: "Falefel, sir?"

Plato: "No! Philosopher!"

Oh, I'm quite a simple soul.  Give me MS. paper and time, and I'll just happily compose . . . .

[Bulldog]

What is love, by the way?

A lot of folks never find the answer.  Love can mean different things to different individuals.  For me, love is a feeling that the loved one is always by my side, regardless of physical proximity.  That's how I feel about my wife, children and classical music.

[karlhenning]

Nicholson has a great line in As Good As It Gets: "If you could make her smile, you got a life."

[Florestan]

The Jews will always be too powerful...

Right. Mahler was too powerful. So was Mendelssohn in his time. Stefan Zweig had a tremendous power, thank God he never used it. Yehudi Menuhin, Jascha Heifetz, Nathan Milstein, Artur Rubinstein and Lazar Berman were so powerful that all the presidents, kings and sultans of the world trembled before them. The very thought of Albert Einstein sends chills over my backbone.

"We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...

[Wilhelm Richard]

From Polytheism, to God, to Organized Religion in general, to the Jews........
........and I am sure that those who were only going along with the speed of traffic will be the ones who are reprimanded.

Therefore, New York I abstain, courteously.

[Bulldog]

I think the problem with Jews is that they need to learn how to take responsibility for their actions:

I think the problem is that you're becoming an obnoxious racist.

[karlhenning]

You should be ashamed for linking to it.

There is so much he has posted, for which he ought to be ashamed. Instead, he exults in himself.

[Brian]

There is so much he has posted, for which he ought to be ashamed. Instead, he exults in himself.

In that case, I'm glad I only just started reading this thread.

[karlhenning]

In that case, I'm glad I only just started reading this thread.

Oh, not in this thread, alone  0:)

[Josquin des Prez]

Tsk, you people are too easily trolled.

[Brian]

Oh, not in this thread, alone  0:)

Karl, a random and distinctly off-topic thought: have you ever imagined what the second movement of Rachmaninov's Second Symphony would sound like, if the opening theme played by the horns were instead the Odd Couple theme song? I have been contemplating this for several months now.  

[Brian]

Tsk, you people are too easily trolled.

You are too easily a troll.

[karlhenning]

Karl, a random and distinctly off-topic thought: have you ever imagined what the second movement of Rachmaninov's Second Symphony would sound like, if the opening theme played by the horns were instead the Odd Couple theme song? I have been contemplating this for several months now.  

A wicked thought, Brian!

[Josquin des Prez]

There you go again.  Your fatal flaw is that you lump together individuals into a group and make pronouncements about the qualities and characteristics of all individuals in the group.  That's wrong-headed thinking that can lead to discrimination and even genocide.  Every individual is unique. 

Every individual is unique, until they band together in a group to subjugate other individuals, who lack the strength to defend themselves against those who act in numbers.

[Guido]

You find hostility in every forum you frequent... Why is that?

Socrates said it best: The unexamined life is not worth living.  Some of us are too busy whingeing to examine the life we live.

Is that a dig at me??! 

[Fëanor]

....

"We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...

Fine then; let's be more specific.  Let's not talk about "We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...; let's not talk about individuals.  Instead let's talk about oranizations, specifically a few that try to influence U.S. foreign policy:

• American Israeli Pulic Affairs Committee
• Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
• Religious Zionists of America
• Zionist Organization of America

These organizations and others work relentlessly to foster and sustain an Amerian foreign policy that is pro-Isreali regardess of whether or not it is the interests of the U.S. or the world in general.  Their emphasis isn't on persuading the American public nearly so much as it is on lobbying members of Congress, funding members who will uncritically support Israel, and counter-funding those who will not.

[Brian]

Every individual is unique, until they band together in a group to subjugate other individuals.

Name one such group.

[Fëanor]

Name one such group.

See above.

[Brian]

See above.

Josquin used the word "subjugate."

1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2.    to make submissive or subservient; enslave.

Is this the sense you meant?

[Guido]

Have we answered this problem of evil thing then once and for all on GMG's very own little forum? What was the outcome?

[Florestan]

Fine then; let's be more specific.  Let's not talk about "We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...; let's not talk about individuals.  Instead let's talk about oranizations, specifically a few that try to influence U.S. foreign policy:

• American Israeli Pulic Affairs Committee
• Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
• Religious Zionists of America
• Zionist Organization of America

These organizations and others work relentlessly to foster and sustain an Amerian foreign policy that is pro-Isreali regardess of whether or not it is the interests of the U.S. or the world in general.  Their emphasis isn't on persuading the American public nearly so much as it is on lobbying members of Congress, funding members who will uncritically support Israel, and counter-funding those who will not.

Yes, that's a legitimate criticism. But lumping together all "the Jews" under the umbrella of a universal, secret, criminal conspiracy against all the rest of the world is not, unless evidence can be produced that (a) it really exists and (b) the Jews I mentioned in my previous post, or our good friend Don here, are involved in it.

[Fëanor]

Josquin used the word "subjugate."

1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2.    to make submissive or subservient; enslave.

Is this the sense you meant?

With respect to U.S. foreign policy, precisely.

[DavidRoss]

Karl, a random and distinctly off-topic thought: have you ever imagined what the second movement of Rachmaninov's Second Symphony would sound like, if the opening theme played by the horns were instead the Odd Couple theme song? I have been contemplating this for several months now.  

Better yet if this were played:

http://www.youtube.com/v/xL_9zdu4iVw

[Bulldog]

Every individual is unique, until they band together in a group to subjugate other individuals, who lack the strength to defend themselves against those who act in numbers.

Give me a break.  You're always talking about group characteristics, whether or not the group is trying to subjugate others.  You pulled this crap with african-americans also, remember?

[Bulldog]

Fine then; let's be more specific.  Let's not talk about "We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...; let's not talk about individuals. 

No, you sure don't want to talk about the individual.  That would detract from your insisting that all members of a group are the same.

[Bulldog]

Yes, that's a legitimate criticism. But lumping together all "the Jews" under the umbrella of a universal, secret, criminal conspiracy against all the rest of the world is not, unless evidence can be produced that (a) it really exists and (b) the Jews I mentioned in my previous post, or our good friend Don here, are involved in it.

Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent.

[DavidRoss]

Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent.

Is it true that after numerological decrypting per the Kabalah, "registered Independent" translates as "Insane Anglo Warlord?"

[Brian]

Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent.

Yes, but Independent starts with I. And so does Illuminati.

Don's a member of the Illuminati!

I knew it 

[Bulldog]

Is it true that after numerological decrypting per the Kabalah, "registered Independent" translates as "Insane Anglo Warlord?"

You got that right, and it won't be long before Feanor and JdP are paying me tribute.  

[karlhenning]

Is that a dig at me??! 

Hah! You have too good a sense of humo(u)r (for only one thing).

[karlhenning]

Name one such group.

Well, there is The Henning Mob (as announced by Cuddles) . . . .

[karlhenning]

Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent.

Also an independent subcontractor to Th H M

[Josquin des Prez]

Name one such group.

Jews are such a group. So are the Muslim, or the Chinese. Those people have a far better prospect for survival then the individualist west, the only ethnic group gullible enough to buy into the absurd notion of multiculturalism.

[karlhenning]

Your mind is wandering. 'The individualist west' is not an ethnic group.  Whether it "buys into the notion" or not, it is multicultural.

Cor, you're a funny one!

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei, Xenophanes, Catison, Guido

I enjoyed reading your thoughtful replies.... Thank you.

Like I said, I am no longer a believer, but there really is nothing like The Lord's Prayer.

I've always liked this one:

http://www.aztlan.net/lordsprayer.htm 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Jews know perfectly well, though very few will admit, that it is their own sense of separation, their own sense of superiority, that has alienated them time and again from the indigenous populations amongst whom they live.

Does this justify the oppression they have suffered?  No, but it explains it.

Quite so, Feanor.

I live in a predominantly orthodox Jewish neighborhood (around 90 percent) in northern New Jersey and I can tell you that they very much keep to themselves. I no longer even make the attempt to greet them occasionally (i.e. friendly hellos or waving) since they rarely make eye contact, even when it's not the sabbath.... They are not interested in any sort of normal fellowship as far as I can tell.

Well, there is the power of a belief system I suppose... 

Of course it doesn't help that a good proportion of Jews tend to be intellectually/academically gifted. This just adds to their quiet assumption: "God really does favor us.... We really are special in his eyes"   

On a minor point:

Do you know what I find so astonishing about Jewish culture ?  That in the year 2009 they still continue with the UTTERLY RETARDED practice of infant circumcision. They have this belief that by snipping off the foreskin of their baby boys on the eight day that somehow they become closer to God, that God demands it. No other culture performs circumcision today with the exception of some tribes in Africa and the United States.

How anyone could not see that such a practice on an infant is not a form of assault and morally wrong is beyond me.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yes, that's a legitimate criticism. But lumping together all "the Jews" under the umbrella of a universal, secret, criminal conspiracy against all the rest of the world is not, unless evidence can be produced that (a) it really exists and (b) the Jews I mentioned in my previous post, or our good friend Don here, are involved in it.

Well, there are many different levels of criticism hurled against organized Jewry. It all depends on whether you believe in race or not. I've researched this subject extensively, and there's two current opinions regarding Jewish power. The first is the left-leaning, universalist belief that there are several Jewish organizations who, independent of Judaism as a whole, are taking advantage of their power and influence (not to mention virtual moral immunity thanks to the memory of the Holocaust) to pursuit all sorts of dishonest activities. Zionism and Israel in particular are generally the primary target for this type of criticism, and, believe or not, it is Jews themselves who often bring it about. A primary example is Norman Finkelstein.

The second point of view is the right-leaning, racialist belief that Jews are biologically different from gentiles, are more intelligent as a group (they outscore white gentiles by about 10 points on standardized IQ tests, which makes them the smartest group of people on the planet, even more then Asians, who only score 5 points above whites), have a stronger sense of ethnic cohesion (the result of an evolutionary adaptation as a nomad group) and are morally particular, that is, good and bad are rated according to what's good or bad for the Jews. Criticism from this perspective generally involves the accusation Jews tend to put their own interests above and sometimes outright against those of the nation or culture that hosts them. Professor Kevin McDonald is a primary source for this type of criticism. For example, he believes that our current immigration policies here in the states are primary the result of American Jews pressuring for them, the reason being that Jews feel more comfortable among a multicultural and multiracial environment, regardless of the destructive effects this has on the host nation. For this purpose, they have employed their superior intellect to develop theories that support their self serving goals (Marxism, Feminism, social engineering and so forth). McDonald uses the Frankfurt school as an example, particularly the works of Theodor W. Adorno such as his theory of the authoritarian personality which, according to McDonald, was used specifically to pathologize all group affiliations among gentiles. As McDonald says in his work, "everything from patriotism to religion to family – and race – loyalty are signs of a dangerous and defective authoritarian personality". At the same time, Israel is ruled by such authoritarian personalities, which is supposed to show the double standard Jews apply to themselves.

Of course, criticism from the left is only directed at certain groups, not Judaism as a whole. Indeed, in his book the Holocaust Industry, where Norman Finkelstein accuses certain Jewish organizations of tarnishing the memory of the Holocaust by running a veritable extortion racket, he is quick to add that regular Jews are too a victim of this organizations, particularly real Holocaust survivals, including Finelstein's own two parents, who have seen very little of the money which those organizations have hoarded for themselves under the pretext of reparations for the Nazi persecution. A refutation of this argument will involve the questioning of whether it is indeed only a small group of organized Jews who are the culprit when most Jews are wont of any form of criticism of what those organizations are doing. Finkelstein himself has been persecuted by powerful Jewish personalities like Alan Dershowitz to the point his career as a professor is essentially over. This despite the fact his distinction as an academician has been impeccable. Only Noam Chomsky and Raul Hilberg have been forthcoming to Finkelstein. Ironically, Chomsky has been attacked by Dershowitz too, and i'm sure Raul Hilberg himself would have as well, had he been alive today.

On the other end, the right-wing criticism of Judaism extends to all Jews, that even good, regular Jews have a strong sense of ethnic cohesion and will follow organized Jewry regardless whether their policies are designed to hurt gentiles. Criticism of this perspective would involve the argument that, while it may be true that Jews work as an organized group and sometimes they put their own interests above those of the gentiles that host them, it is also true that the Jews have contributed more to the development of the 20th century then any other group, for better and for worst. Everything about modernity reflects a Jewish point of view, and in so far as we are men of the modern world, we are all essentially Jewish.

This is, in a nutshell, the principal arguments against organized Jewry. Of course, you also have the conspiratorial fruit baskets who seem to think there is no evil or deception the Jews aren't capable of, but those can be found almost anywhere.

Now, i'm not advocating anything here, i'm just explaining the point of views i came across. I understand the mods want to maintain an air of respectability and not turn this forum into a breeding ground for "neo-Nazi" propaganda, or whatever they think it's going to happen here, so i'm not going to argue for any of those views. I wrote this post merely to show the type of ideas that circulate among critics of Judaism.

[Josquin des Prez]

Your mind is wandering. 'The individualist west' is not an ethnic group.  Whether it "buys into the notion" or not, it is multicultural.

It is multicultural now, sure, and that is why the west is dying. But the west too had strong ethnic feelings at one point. You only need to look at the history of America to see that the notion of a multicultural utopia is a recent construct. I surely don't see any wish from the Anglo-Saxon portion of America to form a multicultural state with the Indians, or the Blacks, or the Chinese, or even other European immigrants, like the Irish, or the Italians.

[DavidRoss]

It is multicultural now, sure, and that is why the west is dying. But the west too had strong ethnic feelings at one point. You only need to look at the history of America to see that the notion of a multicultural utopia is a recent construct. I surely don't see any wish from the Anglo-Saxon portion of America to form a multicultural state with the Indians, or the Blacks, or the Chinese, or even other European immigrants, like the Irish, or the Italians.

The most charitable explanation for that is willful blindness on your part.

[Josquin des Prez]

The most charitable explanation for that is willful blindness on your part.

Here's a brief history of the immigration laws of the United States:

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/dates.html

Can't you just feel the gushing feelings of multiculturalism emanating from this nation? Notice how immigration appears to concern groups of European descent most of the time. Do you know why? Because other ethnic groups simply weren't welcome. Far from being a land of opportunity for people of every race or creed, America was an ethnocentric nation with strong feelings for the preservation of their own European heritage. What do you think those Jim Crow laws were all about?

Indeed, America has always been predominantly white for most of its history. Today, it is only 60% white. Tomorrow, it will be predominantly non-white. Do you think this prediction to be erroneous, or are you going to argue that it doesn't matter?

[DavidRoss]

QED

[Josquin des Prez]

QED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

Population projection from the Census Bureau:

                              2008    2050
Non-Hispanic whites    68%    46%
Hispanic                    15%    25%
African Americans       12%    20%
Asian American            5%      9%

So we went from 90% white to 68% of today to a predicted 46% by 2050. What will the percentage of whites be by 2100? What about 2200? Too far away to care?

[greg]

You're extrapolating a God Who thinks, What Would Greg Do?  

Your illustration (which, I am sure it has not escaped you, is a bit simplistic on a number of points) imputes a questionable motivation to God:  that He created us because He needs our love.  But God is perfect; there is nothing He lacks (and the love among Persons in the Trinity is — without being quite the polytheism which might be better for Eric — an example of Love in the Godhead, without a "need" to create Man in order for God to receive love).  It is true (in Christian thought) that God made Man to love Him, but it is an error to consider this a 'lack' in God, the way no one to love us as people would be a lack.

Could write pages and pages more . . . but just one thought further.  In your rather 'projective' image of God creating, you fall into the error of considering Hell a spiteful punishment which God resentingly imposes.  The idea is more that:  God is Love;  in other words, it is God's nature to act and think and dwell in love.  God created Man in His image:  Man is meant, also, to love, to act and think and dwell in a condition of love.  Where God by His Nature is incapable of Non-Love, Man by his nature is created for the purpose of Love, and yet has free will.  The exercise of one's free will in defiance of Love, is for Man to be 'broken'.  From one angle, Hell is the absence of Love.  God doesn't "send" anyone to Hell;  Men choose to go there.

This is a good, insightful answer.

As for the first paragraph, I can't really say what I know because I'm not sure... I have heard things like "God is a jealous God" (jealous in a good way) of wanting your acceptance, etc. in church, though I wasn't sure about the "need" part.

So, a few questions more, if you don't mind:
-If God didn't actually "need" our love, why bother creating us? Diversion?
-The "Men choose to go there" part... now really, isn't that a really huge simplification?

Choosing a religion or belief is not simply a choice based on logic. It's a partially blind choice, mainly influenced by the people and culture around that person. It's like rolling a dice, and depending on that dice, it may have more sixes or fives than others- or, one may decide to write his own number or consciously put it down on a certain number that may be unlikely.

If the correct answer is a six, everyone else is screwed. I'm not sure that's fair to be punished for this type of scenario, is it?


I'd love nothing more than for this to make sense to me. 

[Xenophanes]

Andrei, Xenophanes, Catison, Guido

I enjoyed reading your thoughtful replies.... Thank you.

Like I said, I am no longer a believer, but there really is nothing like The Lord's Prayer.

I've always liked this one:

http://www.aztlan.net/lordsprayer.htm 

Well, we have gotten rather off the topic!  I know some philosophers have defended polytheism but I haven't managed to read any of them.  

I suppose one can feel closer to local gods who are available for particular purposes, rather than some universal distant god.  There are still many places sacred to some people. Those in village cultures may still have their family and local devotions.  But even those with a modern education go to them. A couple of people I know went on a tour of mostly Celtic sacred places in Ireland.  This seems nostalgia to me as it has little to do with their everyday lives.

And of course, in some branches of Christianity, there are sites devoted to saints, old mission sites, sites devoted to apparitions of Mary, and so on.  

Some of the East Indians seem to be henotheists, devoting themselves to the divine under the aspect of a particular mythological god such as Vishnu or Shiva, often manifested at a particular place.

From my point of view, lesser gods still require the One or Pure Act or Ground of Being, depending on the philosophical perspective.  

[Brian]

Indeed, America has always been predominantly white for most of its history. Today, it is only 60% white. Tomorrow, it will be predominantly non-white. Do you think this prediction to be erroneous, or are you going to argue that it doesn't matter?

What do you think of the prediction? I (and I am a white person) think it is a good thing.

[Josquin des Prez]

What do you think of the prediction? I (and I am a white person) think it is a good thing.

I think it's going to spell disaster for this nation. America was build by whites, it will go down as whites go down, to the detriment of everybody involved, and considering the level of animosity most ethnic groups are currently brooding against white Americans, i'm willing to bet we will not only become a minority, but a persecuted minority at that, and if current trends still hold then, we will eventually become extinct as a people.

Now i'm curious, what do you think it's going to happen when whites become a minority within their own lands? Multicultural harmony? Universal brotherly love? Rainbow colored unicorns dropping candy bars from the sky? Let's ear it.

[Bulldog]

Indeed, America has always been predominantly white for most of its history. Today, it is only 60% white. Tomorrow, it will be predominantly non-white. Do you think this prediction to be erroneous, or are you going to argue that it doesn't matter?

I think the prediction is on target, and America will surely change as a result.  Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen, but there's certainly a decent chance that the changes will be favorable.  

[Bulldog]

I think it's going to spell disaster for this nation. America was build by whites, it will go down as whites go down, to the detriment of everybody involved, and considering the level of animosity most ethnic groups are currently brooding against white Americans, i'm willing to bet we will not only become a minority, but a persecuted minority at that, and if current trends still hold then, we will eventually become extinct as a people.

Even Native Americans didn't become extinct.

[Bulldog]

I live in a predominantly orthodox Jewish neighborhood (around 90 percent) in northern New Jersey and I can tell you that they very much keep to themselves. I no longer even make the attempt to greet them occasionally (i.e. friendly hellos or waving) since they rarely make eye contact, even when it's not the sabbath.... They are not interested in any sort of normal fellowship as far as I can tell.

Why would you be living in an orthodox Jewish neighborhood?  I'm jewish and would never consider living in one.  God bless them, but orthodox jews are extremely rigid and want to live by themselves.  It's best that they do just that. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen, but there's certainly a decent chance that the changes will be favorable. 

What are you basing your odds on? Surely, i would say American culture has already waned considerably in this past several decades.

Even Native Americans didn't become extinct.

Only because we meant to keep them alive. Indeed, the fate of the American Indians is a mute testament of what happens when vastly different groups meet each other, and we never really had any particular animosity for them. Imagine what's going to happen to whites with all the hate that goes around.

God bless them, but orthodox jews are extremely rigid and want to live by themselves.  It's best that they do just that. 

Yeah, but when whites become extremely rigid and decide they want to live by themselves, it's called racism. 

[Bulldog]

I think it's going to spell disaster for this nation. America was build by whites, it will go down as whites go down,

That's very limited thinking on your part to feel that as whites go, so goes America.  There's even the possibility that as whites go down, America goes up.  All sorts of combinations are possible as America keeps evolving.

[Brian]

I think it's going to spell disaster for this nation. America was build by whites, it will go down as whites go down, to the detriment of everybody involved, and considering the level of animosity most ethnic groups are currently brooding against white Americans, i'm willing to bet we will not only become a minority, but a persecuted minority at that, and if current trends still hold then, we will eventually become extinct as a people.

Now i'm curious, what do you think it's going to happen when whites become a minority within their own lands? Multicultural harmony? Universal brotherly love? Rainbow colored unicorns dropping candy bars from the sky? Let's ear it.

I don't view whites as a people.
I also don't expect to view this thread still open when I wake up tomorrow. Believe it or not the forum policy has rules against posts like this.

[snyprrr]

funny, I was just going to say that this "lockable" thread seemed to be thriving in semi politeness, and while I was typing, the last 2 posts came up, and now the thread won't be here in the morning?

[Josquin des Prez]

That's very limited thinking on your part to feel that as whites go, so goes America.  There's even the possibility that as whites go down, America goes up.  All sorts of combinations are possible as America keeps evolving.

America is already going down. Nothing in America is evolving. The fate of Haiti is an example of what could actually happen, as narrated by Vernon Hesketh Prichard:

Go in whatever direction you like, the sites that meet you are the same. Ruined houses, ruined aqueducts, ruined fountains of stone, ruined walls, ruined forts...from the sea the town is but a little cluster of dwellings heaped together beneath the wooded mountains...her jetties are broken, black and old; the usual wreck lies ashore in her harbor and you will find there is one in every important harbor in the Republic... Once in the old French days the town was the center of luxury and fashion. It was called the "Little Paris" of the West. Since then ruin and devastation have swept over it

This was written in 1900. Look at Haiti today. Has anything changed? Look at Africa. Has anything changed? Which part of our current state of affairs makes you believe that it isn't going to happen to America? Is it our crumbling economy? Our sordid educational levels, which are decreasing exponentially? Our rotten consumerist culture? The fifty percent divorce rate and growing? Fifty years ago we were putting people on the moon. Today, we are wondering whether space exploration is even something that we need. Where is this progress our multicultural utopia is going to bestow upon us?

[Josquin des Prez]

I also don't expect to view this thread still open when I wake up tomorrow. Believe it or not the forum policy has rules against posts like this.

Was this country build by Anglo-Saxon settlers, or was it not? Was Rome build by the Romans? And if so, what happened to Rome when the Romans went down?

[karlhenning]

America is already going down.

Speak for yourself.

(Oh; you were.)

[Florestan]

I live in a predominantly orthodox Jewish neighborhood (around 90 percent) in northern New Jersey

Why don't you change your place?

[Florestan]

Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent.

Decryption: you pursue your own, individual conspiracy. 

[Florestan]

Finkelstein himself has been persecuted by powerful Jewish personalities like Alan Dershowitz to the point his career as a professor is essentially over. This despite the fact his distinction as an academician has been impeccable. Only Noam Chomsky and Raul Hilberg have been forthcoming to Finkelstein. Ironically, Chomsky has been attacked by Dershowitz too, and i'm sure Raul Hilberg himself would have as well, had he been alive today.

So much for the unconditional support and complicity among Jews. 

Everything about modernity reflects a Jewish point of view, and in so far as we are men of the modern world, we are all essentially Jewish.

It isn't very clear wether this is your point or a statement of somebody else's point. If the former case is true, could you please provide some reasons? It seems to me an exaggerated claim.

[Florestan]

I also don't expect to view this thread still open when I wake up tomorrow.

If it makes you that angry, why do you keep watching and posting?

Demands for stifling the expression of ideas and opinions contrary to your own is hardly the way to prove you are right. Rational refutation is a much better strategy.

[Gurn Blanston]

It's quite odd, really, and probably indicative of a sea change in world view; it seemed that every thread that got started here in The Diner turned into a religion thread, either for or against. Now, even religion threads seem to get turned into racism threads.

I am not going to lock this thread (at this point), but let me remind you all to maintain moderation in what you post. This thread could easily become un desaparacido. There are places on the Internet for this sort of discussion other than a classical music board. I welcome you to divide your time between one of those and us (if you actually want to talk about music, which in some cases I doubt).

Gurn Blanston

[Homo Aestheticus]

Why don't you change your place?

Because I've lived here for years, the taxes are relatively low (for Bergen County), and the apartment is snug, safe and quiet... 

Also, Manhattan is a short bus or ferry ride away.

[Brian]

If it makes you that angry, why do you keep watching and posting?

Demands for stifling the expression of ideas and opinions contrary to your own is hardly the way to prove you are right. Rational refutation is a much better strategy.

1. I do not really "keep watching and posting" - I have yet to read the first fourteen or so pages of this thread. And I don't plan to. But...

2. This is not "stifling free expression." Or about "rational refutation." I can't "rationally refute" racist pigs who think that minorities corrupt America, Jews are trying to subjugate the world, or the perils of mingling between races. What's more, I don't have to, because the issue at hand is enforcement of forum rules. Specifically, these forum rules:

GMG caters to all cultures and age groups. [posts] not acceptable for posting on the forum ... include ... hate-related posts, ... and links to sites with such content.

Gurn Blanston has, above, clarified his current policy toward this thread and especially with regard to what he calls:

...racism threads.

I am not going to lock this thread (at this point), but let me remind you all to maintain moderation ... There are places on the Internet for this sort of discussion other than a classical music board. I welcome you to divide your time between one of those and us (if you actually want to talk about music, which in some cases I doubt).

I will hold out hope (as a mere spectator) that the thread will police itself in a satisfactory way. If it does not, then perhaps the participants would like to follow one of Josquin's links to "free speech" (ie hate speech) websites to pursue the discussion with people more likely to find their views agreeable, or at least less deserving of being "stifled."

Forgive me for my presumption in diverting the current discussion solely for the satisfaction of my own capricious devotion to the rules. 

[Xenophanes]

The individual promoted by Spinoza is a cold, objective, never-weeping, never-laughing, always rational, passionless and lifeless robot.

My sympathy goes entirely with the full humanity of Dostoyevsky, whose heroes are the exact opposite of the Spinozian machines: they are hot, subjective, they weep, they cry, they are sometimes irrational, they are passionate, and life pulsates in their every thought and action.

I'd rather have dinner with Ivan Karamazov than with... wait, I can't think of any embodiment of the Spinozian ideal. So I guess I'll invite Myshkin as well.

It seems to me that you confuse the roles of philosophers and novelists. Do you have any basis for this criticism of Spinoza?  What do you know about him and his philosophy?

[Florestan]

It seems to me that you confuse the roles of philosophers and novelists.

IMO, both philosophers and novelists offer us a worldview and in this respect they are alike. Where they differ is in the method of expounding it: more or less direct and systematical in the former case, more or less indirect and unsystematical in the latter.

For me, the most interesting representatives of both worlds are those overlapping them, say Schopenhauer and Dostoyevsky, or Kierkegaard and Hermann Hesse.

Do you have any basis for this criticism of Spinoza?  What do you know about him and his philosophy?

My criticism is not directed at Spinoza, but at the human ideal he seemed to favour. If I am wrong in its assessment, please correct my errors.

[karlhenning]

Forgive me for my presumption in diverting the current discussion solely for the satisfaction of my own capricious devotion to the rules. 

For my part, no forgiveness needed, mon vieux.

[Florestan]

I can't "rationally refute"

That's only too obvious. I haven't seen any line of reasoning or evidence from you...

racist pigs

...unless, of course, you count ad hominem attacks as reason and evidence.

NB 1 I do not espouse or endorse all JdP's points, but I have always thought that a rational, educated and well-mannered person could discuss anything, including ideas and opinions that go contrary to one's own or to the orthodoxy of a place or time.

NB 2 It's a mystery to me why some people who claim to have rationality and science on their side never use them against their opponents. Rules and regulations are necessary, but they don't, of themselves, make an idea right or wrong.

[karlhenning]

...unless, of course, you count ad hominem attacks as reason and evidence.

Well, pigs was indeed a casual lapse into ad hominem; but:

The Jews will always be too powerful...

. . . is certainly gratuitously racist, and reflects very poorly on a neighbor whose reputation is none too high, to begin with.

[Florestan]

. . . is certainly gratuitously racist, and reflects very poorly on a neighbor whose reputation is none too high, to begin with.

I see it as an unwarranted generalization and a typical example of collectivist thinking, but I see no racism in it. First, is Judaity a race apart? Second, Eric didn't call for segregation from, or persecution of, Jews.

He's no racist at all, just, as Don aptly described him, muddled

[karlhenning]

He's no racist at all, just, as Don aptly described him, muddled

Oh, probably I agree;  but a muddled person may besmirch himself with expelling a racist remark.  Somewhere earliert in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision. Of course this is the OP in FMM (Fully Muddled Mode), just airing one of his personal demons (and frightfully entertaining, too).

Can't take him anywhere, I expect.

Most people would take some time to practice holding their tongue, and thinking a bit (maybe indeed thinking a great deal) before remarking. Oh, but not Eric . . . .

[Josquin des Prez]

Hate speech is just an euphemism for censorship and thought control. Liberals are pretty good at silencing discussion of subjects they don't like by presenting what is essentially an ad hominem attack.

The issue of course is that facts cannot be hateful, they can only be correct or incorrect.

[karlhenning]

The issue of course is that facts cannot be hateful, they can only be correct or incorrect.

For you, an unusually factual and accurate remark.

[Florestan]

Somewhere earliert in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision.

Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

[Josquin des Prez]

First, is Judaity a race apart?

I would argue that they are a nation. 

[Fëanor]

Well, there are many different levels of criticism hurled against organized Jewry. It all depends on whether you believe in race or not. I've researched this subject extensively, and there's two current opinions regarding Jewish power. The first is the left-leaning, universalist belief that there are several Jewish organizations who, independent of Judaism as a whole, are taking advantage of their power and influence (not to mention virtual moral immunity thanks to the memory of the Holocaust) to pursuit all sorts of dishonest activities. Zionism and Israel in particular are generally the primary target for this type of criticism, and, believe or not, it is Jews themselves who often bring it about. ...

The second point of view is the right-leaning, racialist belief that Jews are biologically different from gentiles...

Of course, criticism from the left is only directed at certain groups, not Judaism as a whole. ...

I would like to be on record, with respect to this controversy, as a "left-leaning universalist".  Whether Jews are a race depends on the definition of "race", and I consider this to be a specious issue in today's world.

I don't believe in any thing like a universal "World Jewish Conspiracy", the "Protocols of Zion", or for that matter, the "Illuminati".  However I do believe in the American Israeli lobby, which is a matter of fact, not speculation.  I do personally believe that this lobby is advocating an unconditional support by the U.S. for the state of Israel that is against the interests of the U.S. -- and for that matter, Israel itself.

[Bulldog]

On a minor point:

Do you know what I find so astonishing about Jewish culture ?  That in the year 2009 they still continue with the UTTERLY RETARDED practice of infant circumcision. They have this belief that by snipping off the foreskin of their baby boys on the eight day that somehow they become closer to God, that God demands it. No other culture performs circumcision today with the exception of some tribes in Africa and the United States.

How anyone could not see that such a practice on an infant is not a form of assault and morally wrong is beyond me.

Oh, stop being a whimp.  When are you getting your vasectomy?

[Florestan]

I would like to be on record, with respect to this controversy, as a "left-leaning universalist". 

I don't believe in any thing like a universal "World Jewish Conspiracy", the "Protocols of Zion", or for that matter, the "Illuminati".  However I do believe in the American Israeli lobby, which is a matter of fact, not speculation.  I do personally believe that this lobby is advocating an unconditional support by the U.S. for the state of Israel that is against the interests of the U.S. -- and for that matter, Israel itself.

I don't see what is "left-leaning" in that. 

[DavidRoss]

For you, an unusually factual and accurate remark.

Yes.  More usual is statement of opinions and falsehoods presented as if they were factual.

Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

Still today more than 50% of male infants are circumcised in the U.S. (see http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/).  There are roughly 5 million Jews in the U.S. (see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html).  Since the birth rate among American Jews is below the average (see this LA Times story), and since Jews comprise less than 2% of the US population, it is not likely that more than 50% of male newborns in the US are all Jewish.

[karlhenning]

Still today more than 50% of male infants are circumcised in the U.S.

Nor will Eric be able to rest until that percentage is dropped into single digits!

(So to speak.)

[karlhenning]

Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it.

I misquoted Eric, of course.  He did not use the adjective stupid. His word was (and in all caps) UTTERLY RETARDED.

[Fëanor]

I would argue that they [the Jews] are a nation [rather than a race]. 

Unlike the definition of biological race -- which is a valid concept perhaps, but much abused and not a very helpful in today's world -- the definition of "nation" is important.  Let us say something like, "A nation is a substantial group of people who see themselves as sharing unique interests and goals by vitual of a common culture of birth and upbringing."  The Jews satisfy this definition.  Of course, individual Jews can see themselves more or less as sharing these unique interests.

[karlhenning]

Gotta love those 'smart ads', though . . . .

[Florestan]

Let us say something like, "A nation is a substantial group of people who see themselves as sharing unique interests and goals by vitual of a common culture of birth and upbringing."  The Jews satisfy this definition.

So do the Muslims, yet they are not a nation. IMO, the definition should include "a common ancestry, religion, language, culture, customs, traditions and civilization"

[Florestan]

Gotta love those 'smart ads', though . . . .

Big Brother's watching us. 

[Bulldog]

I misquoted Eric, of course.  He did not use the adjective stupid. His word was (and in all caps) UTTERLY RETARDED.

We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.

[Florestan]

We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.

Yeah, but she's not circumcised... 

[Fëanor]

So do the Muslims, yet they are not a nation. IMO, the definition should include "a common ancestry, religion, language, culture, customs, traditions and civilization"

Muslims are not a nation because they don't require a common origin of birth and upbringing.  I think my terms, "birth and upbringing", subsume ancestry, religion, language, culture, customs, traditions and civilization in various combinations.

You will note that it is possible to convert to Judaism.  However Jew do not seek converts, and the requirements of conversion are much more rigorous that for typical religious conversion.  That is, a deep study not only of theology but also of the history and traditions of the Jews is required;  (possibly Reform Judaism's requirements are less strenous, but we need not put too fine a point on it).

[DavidRoss]

We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.

Dig those Jewish viking babes!  (Is that a bottle of aquavit in her right hand?)

[Josquin des Prez]

Yes.  More usual is statement of opinions and falsehoods presented as if they were factual.

The point is that you have to prove whether a statement is factual or not. Calling somebody a racist is not proof, it's an ad hominem attack.

[Bulldog]

You will note that it is possible to convert to Judaism.  However Jew do not seek converts,

You haven't heard of our door-to-door recruiting campaign?

[Fëanor]

Yeah, but she's not circumcised... 

Presumably not, female circumcision has never been part of the Jewish rite.  Their not that stupid, eh?

[Fëanor]

You haven't heard of our door-to-door recruiting campaign?

No, except for the Jews For Jesus.

[Florestan]

I think my terms, "birth and upbringing", subsume ancestry, religion, language, culture, customs, traditions and civilization in various combinations.

OK.

You will note that it is possible to convert to Judaism. 

Yes, just as it is possible to convert to any other religion. But by converting to Judaism does a non-Jew become a Jew?

[karlhenning]

Calling somebody a racist is not proof, it's an ad hominem attack.

Identifying a remark as racist, is not an ad hominem attack.

Just as identifying your behavior as trollish, is not an ad hominem attack.

[Bulldog]

Dig those Jewish viking babes!  (Is that a bottle of aquavit in her right hand?)

Yes, and the young woman in question assists in the circumcision of adult males.

[Florestan]

Yes, and the young woman in question assists in the circumcision of adult males.

If the penis must not be erect, this is not assistance but obstruction. 

[Bulldog]

OK.

Yes, just as it is possible to convert to any other religion. But by converting to Judaism does a non-Jew become a Jew?

Yes.

[Josquin des Prez]

Identifying a remark as racist, is not an ad hominem attack.

Yeah, but who's to say what is racist and what is not? Ho yes, liberals do. How convenient.

[DavidRoss]

The point is that you have to prove whether a statement is factual or not. Calling somebody a racist is not proof, it's an ad hominem attack.

Why is this addressed to me?  Do you seek a logical analysis of these statements, neither of which is true?  

If a statement is factual, then it is factual, regardless of "proof."  It is customary to offer support for factual claims that may be in dispute.

Calling someone a "racist" is not necessarily an attack of any sort (though it can be and often is, for instance when used as an epithet intended to quash discussion).  It could be a simple statement of fact.  

[Florestan]

Yes.

Then whoever adheres to Judaism is a full member of the Jewish nation, regardless of his ethnic background (for instance, by converting to Judaism an Italian is no more Italian but Jew) --- is this correct?

[DavidRoss]

Then whoever adheres to Judaism is a full member of the Jewish nation, regardless of his ethnic background (for instance, by converting to Judaism an Italian is no more Italian but Jew) --- is this correct?

This reminds me of an old story about the fellow who converted to Catholicism, a ceremony completed when the priest made the sign of the cross before him while proclaiming, "You were born a Jew, you were raised a Jew, but you are now a Catholic."

Some time later, the priest happened upon the new convert while he was eating a hamburger on Friday.  The priest chastized the man for eating beef on Friday instead of fish (an old story, remember?).  "No problem, Father," the man said.  He then waved his hand over the hamburger and said, "You were born a cow, you were raised a cow, but you are now a fish!"

[Florestan]

This reminds me of an old story about the fellow who converted to Catholicism, a ceremony completed when the priest made the sign of the cross before him while proclaiming, "You were born a Jew, you were raised a Jew, but you are now a Catholic."

Some time later, the priest happened upon the new convert while he was eating a hamburger on Friday.  The priest chastized the man for eating beef on Friday instead of fish (an old story, remember?).  "No problem, Father," the man said.  He then waved his hand over the hamburger and said, "You were born a cow, you were raised a cow, but you are now a fish!"

[Bulldog]

Then whoever adheres to Judaism is a full member of the Jewish nation, regardless of his ethnic background (for instance, by converting to Judaism an Italian is no more Italian but Jew) --- is this correct?

No.  A non-jewish citizen of Italy who converts to Judaism is an Italian Jew (just like I'm an American Jew).  Through conversion, only the religious identity changes.

[Florestan]

No.  A non-jewish citizen of Italy who converts to Judaism is an Italian Jew (just like I'm an American Jew). 

Are you then a convert Jew or a Jew by birth?

Through conversion, only the religious identity changes.

That's my position too.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Eric is no racist at all

Thanks Andrei.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

But it doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be done.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Somewhere earlier in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision.

And I stand by that.

Look at nature, even some animals have foreskins. That is the way the gods designed us. And it has protecive functions as well.

Removing that from an infant is just morally wrong.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Nor will Eric be able to rest until that percentage is dropped into single digits!

(So to speak.)

That's correct.

I do not believe that  anyone  has the right to cut a part of somebody's body without their consent.

[Bulldog]

Are you then a convert Jew or a Jew by birth?

By birth.  

[Florestan]

Thanks Andrei.

You're welcome, but try not to think in collectivistic terms anymore.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Well, pigs was indeed a casual lapse into ad hominem; but:

. . . is certainly gratuitously racist, and reflects very poorly on a neighbor whose reputation is none too high, to begin with.

FYI, I work with Jews and one of my sisters also married one (Reform)

But I do believe that Jews, on the whole, carry with them a quiet, holier-than-thou mindset... And the 'proud attitude' shows more often than any other group I've seen.

This is not racist, I am merely sharing my observations.

[karlhenning]

Thanks Andrei.

Can the leopard change his spots, or Eric learn to read more than selectively?

Somewhere earlier in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision.

Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

[Florestan]

By birth.  

Then the comparison you just made with the Italian by birth which by conversion becomes an Italian Jew, just like you are an American Jew, yet being so by birth it's a bit confusing.

If it looks like I'm splitting hairs, I think I actually am, so never mind.

[Bulldog]

But it doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be done.

Not a fact at all.  What's this obsession you have about circumcision?  Why would you even care?

As a person who was circumcised as an infant, let me throw out some straight facts:

1.  I have no memory of the event.
2.  It has had no unfavorable impact on my life or health.
3.  I look great!

[karlhenning]

I work with Jews and one of my sisters also married one (Reform)

Doesn't change the offensive nature of your discussion, Eric.  How frequently to you tell the Jews with who you work or to whom you are related by marriage that they are UTTERLY RETARDED, hmm?

[DavidRoss]

Not a fact at all.  What's this obsession you have about circumcision?  Why would you even care?

As a person who was circumcised as an infant, let me throw out some straight facts:

1.  I have no memory of the event.
2.  It has had no unfavorable impact on my life or health.
3.  I look great!

We'll take your word for it.  No pics, please.

[karlhenning]

Not a fact at all.

Correct.  Chap simply does not know what a fact is.  Incapable of learning?  Just wilfully dense?  You make the call.

What's this obsession you have about circumcision?  Why would you even care?

As a person who was circumcised as an infant, let me throw out some straight facts:

1.  I have no memory of the event.
2.  It has had no unfavorable impact on my life or health.
3.  I look great!

Don't confuse Eric with the facts; his mind is made up.

[karlhenning]

We'll take your word for it.  No pics, please.

Esti thinks Don looks great!

[Bulldog]

Then the comparison you just made with the Italian by birth which by conversion becomes an Italian Jew, just like you are an American Jew, yet being so by birth it's a bit confusing.

If it looks like I'm splitting hairs, I think I actually am, so never mind.

Yes, you're splitting hairs by making the distinction between converted Jews and Jews by birth.  Once converted, a jew is a jew.

[Bulldog]

Correct.  Chap simply does not know what a fact is.  Incapable of learning?  Just wilfully dense?  You make the call.

Wilfully dense but capable of getting out of the fog.

[karlhenning]

Wilfully dense but capable of getting out of the fog.

When I see him emerge from the fog, I will affirm your faith in his capability.

[Josquin des Prez]

Why is this addressed to me?  Do you seek a logical analysis of these statements, neither of which is true? 

If a statement is factual, then it is factual, regardless of "proof."  It is customary to offer support for factual claims that may be in dispute.

Calling someone a "racist" is not necessarily an attack of any sort (though it can be and often is, for instance when used as an epithet intended to quash discussion).  It could be a simple statement of fact. 

So why all the hate and moral outrage hurled against me? It seems as if many people have already established that my arguments and ideas are erroneous a priori, so that any attempt from my part to spread those ideas is automatically dismissed as hate propaganda, that is, that i myself know full well that those arguments and ideas are fallacious, but promote them nonetheless because of my innate hatred or racism. This is what we generally refer to as bigotry, to act upon previously established preconceptions and prejudices while shunning all attempts at rational discourse.

For instance, let's take the following article:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm

How many here would dismiss the data as racist because of the pre-conceived idea that all attempts at arguing for human bio-diversity is racist by default, and how many of you will automatically assume me to be a racist for merely linking to it?

[DavidRoss]

So why all the hate and moral outrage hurled against me?

Again I'm puzzled that you address this question to me.  I don't recall expressing either toward you--but I have openly expressed disdain for your delusion of moral and intellectual superiority.  If you really were bright, you'd be bright enough to know that you're not very bright at all.  Like most intellectuals, you confuse intellectualism with intelligence--but if you got out more, you'd know that intellectuals are no smarter (and at best no dumber) than anyone else.

If you're sincerely asking why "hate" and moral outrage get hurled at you on this forum (and elsewhere?), I suggest that you are bright enough to answer that for yourself if you just look back through your posts to see which attracted the most scorn, and then make a fair-minded attempt to see them from your critics' perspectives.  I think you will find that arrogant superciliousness, coupled with persistent expression of unpopular and inflammatory opinions, may be largely responsible.

[Josquin des Prez]

So much for the unconditional support and complicity among Jews. 

Well, there's degrees of everything. Jews may be in fact more prone to ethnocentric feelings then other European cultures, but this doesn't mean they are genetically engineered parasites governed telepathically by a single central intelligence or something. 

But really. Having been raised in Italy, i've had plenty of experience with ethnocentrism to be able to recognize it in others. I also think that one of the things that ties Jews together is their sense of victimhood. They believe they are a persecuted people who always need to look out for one another to fend off gentile hatred, real or imagined. This has had a powerful binding effect even among the most liberally minded of Jews.

Of course, one of the most characteristic signs of ethnocentrism among Jews is the fact more then 90% of them vote liberal. This seems a bit incongruent considering the number of conservative orthodox Jews, and the only possible explanation is that Jews vote liberal because they benefit from liberalism as a group, whereas conservatism is tied to gentile nationalism and is thus seen as a threat.

It isn't very clear wether this is your point or a statement of somebody else's point. If the former case is true, could you please provide some reasons? It seems to me an exaggerated claim.

I was exaggerating of course, but i think there is a level of truth in saying modernism, while not necessarily a Jewish led phenomena, does in a way reflect a Jewish perspective, particularly in this past fifty years or so. Indeed, many of the most characteristic movements that define the 20th century have been heavily influenced by Jews, well out of proportion relatively to their numbers. Professor Yuri Slezkine argue that because of the type of skills Jews specialized in, they were the most modern and by extension the most prepared when modernism actually came around. His argument is that modernity is about acquiring a particular set of skills, and since Jews have specialized in those particular skills better then any other group, we can say that being modern is essentially akin to being Jewish. Others, like Kevin McDonald, attribute a more direct involvement of Jews in the shaping of the events that characterized the 20th century.

Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.

[Guido]

Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.

I would be impressed if you could prove that Einstein had produced a Jewish physics (and almost as impressed if you could show that Schoenberg was a 'Jewish' composer in that he reflected Jewish ideals with 12 tone music.)

[Florestan]

persistent expression of unpopular and inflammatory opinions

This is exactly what Galilei or Darwin did.

My point being that if an idea is unpopular or inflamatory, it doesn't follow that it is false or true.

[karlhenning]

Well, you struck the phrase arrogant superciliousness from the same sentence, which alters the whole context.

[Fëanor]

...

Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.

To diddle with semantics, is it really the "Jewish influence" or merely the "influence of Jews"

There's not doubt the individual Jews have made great contributions to European (Western) civilization and we are better off for that.  If the worst we have to complain about is their involvment in leftist movements, then indeed we don't have much to complain about -- arguably the contrary.

[Florestan]

Well, you struck the phrase arrogant superciliousness from the same sentence, which alters the whole context.

Yes, but if arrogant superciliousness is used to describe JdP's attitude towards people here on GMG, I have seen none of it. I might be wrong but, as far as I recall, he expressed his controversial views in a polite manner. His favourite term of abuse seems to be "liberal", which is a mere trifle compared to the amount of scornful insults and ironies that have been heaped upon him.

[Elgarian]

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.

My comparison with opening eyes/seeing blue is not a metaphor, actually, but an illustration of the fact that some things need to be shown, and cannot be told - (there's a Wittenstein quote for this - I may not have it exactly but the gist is there).

'their own fault', you say? There's no one at fault here. We're trying to understand why there's a failure of communication. At least, that's what I'm trying to do - though admittedly without much success. But this has nothing to do with whose fault it might be; it's about trying to discover how best to understand each other.

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.

The issue is whether his original metaphor is intelligible. You found it unintelligible. I said I could make something of it, and tried to explain why. If you find my explanation equally unintelligible, then I think we probably have to admit defeat and agree that we don't understand each other.

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. 

What is all this business about 'blame' and being 'insulting'? If you see someone trying to remove a screw with a pair of scissors, would you expect them to be insulted if you suggested they might have more success with a screwdriver? No one is being 'blamed'.

To use my analogy again, if you were trying to explain to someone the experience of the colour blue, you would not be able to do so in mere words, regardless of how much they insist that you try to do so. It has to be seen, not told. One of the reasons why we resort to the use of metaphor is because it enables us to attempt 'showing' (albeit imperfectly), rather than 'telling'. And sometimes metaphor fails. Josquin de Pres's metaphor did not completely fail, for me. I think I understand to some degree what he was trying to say (or show). But it did fail completely, for you, and my efforts to explain have also failed completely. That's the risk of trying to communicate at all. But no one is to blame. No one is being insulted. We've simply failed to communicate, sad though that is.

[Homo Aestheticus]

What's this obsession you have about circumcision?  

Why would you even care?

Why ?

Because there is no medical justification for it.

But hypothetically, if there were no religious command for it and if the father himself was intact, why would it  ever  occur to a parent to have their infant son's foreskin snipped off ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.

Don, that woman is plain and boring; in my book she's not even decent-looking.

What is it with men and this fascination with skinny women and bony facial features ?



Whatever happened to voluptuous ladies with cherubic faces ?

[DavidRoss]

My point being that if an idea is unpopular or inflamatory, it doesn't follow that it is false or true.

True...however the veracity of his claims was not at issue, but reasons for what he called "hate and moral outrage" directed toward him.

Yes, but if arrogant superciliousness is used to describe JdP's attitude towards people here on GMG, I have seen none of it.

Lucky you.  I, too, skip over most of his posts.

Elgarian--I appreciate your efforts.  On another thread recently there was mention of the first "chapter" of Tao from Tao Te Ching, the first lines of which read "The Ways that can be explained are not the eternal Way; the names that can be named are not the eternal Name."

Not only are words inadequate to communicate understanding of things which must be experienced to be known, but the difficulty is compounded when we mistake the words and concepts they represent for the things themselves, forgetting that they are only approximations--descriptions at best, limited by our experience and the conceptual frameworks to which we apply them.  How often we mistake the finger for the moon!

[Josquin des Prez]

True...however the veracity of his claims was not at issue, but reasons for what he called "hate and moral outrage" directed toward him.
Lucky you.  I, too, skip over most of his posts.

Elgarian--I appreciate your efforts.  On another thread recently there was mention of the first "chapter" of Tao from Tao Te Ching, the first lines of which read "The Ways that can be explained are not the eternal Way; the names that can be named are not the eternal Name."

Not only are words inadequate to communicate understanding of things which must be experienced to be known, but the difficulty is compounded when we mistake the words and concepts they represent for the things themselves, forgetting that they are only approximations--descriptions at best, limited by our experience and the conceptual frameworks to which we apply them.  How often we mistake the finger for the moon!

That is why most intellectuals in the past were both philosophers and poets in the same breath. Today, we have replaced all that with science, the art of studying and categorizing approximations.

[Bulldog]

Don, that woman is plain and boring; in my book she's not even decent-looking.

What is it with men and this fascination with skinny women and bony facial features ?



Whatever happened to voluptuous ladies with cherubic faces ?

But that woman is already voluptuous with an angelic face.  You are hopeless.

[Josquin des Prez]

You really are a hoot.  Can you go even one whole day without thinking in terms of group characteristics?

The study of humanity is my favored hobby, there's not much i can do about it. But tell me, why is that you are bothered so much by it? 

[Florestan]

The study of humanity is my favored hobby

J, I'm curious: what do you make of Romanians from your study? Where do they fit in the overall European scheme? I want an honest answer.

[Bulldog]

The study of humanity is my favored hobby, there's not much i can do about it. 

Excellent.  Could you provide some suggestions as to how Western Civilization can stop the decline that you talk about?

[karlhenning]

The study of humanity is my favored hobby, there's not much i can do about it. But tell me, why is that you are bothered so much by it? 

Your reading is faulty. Don is not bothered;  he is amused.  That is the meaning of "you are a hoot."

[Florestan]

there is no hostility in the art of Gustav Mahler, thought it is quintessentially Askhenazi.

I don't know what it means to be quintessentially Ashkenazi (if you can enlighten me, please do), but I think that Mahler (or Mendelssohn for that matter) was working fully in the Austro-German musical tradition and his Jewishness played not against, but cumulative to, this tradition. Also, I think that the great Jewish violinists or pianists of the 20th century were as representative of the Western musical tradition as the non-Jew ones. BTW, it is interesting that the number of great Jewish performers is larger than that of great Jewish composers --- I might be wrong, but off my head it seems to be so. It seems to me that, although Jewish political agenda may not always coincide with the European gentiles agenda, the cultural one shows no contradistinction.

Like most peripheral countries who came under the influence of Europe, they retain their own exotic element without being incompatible with European culture. Indeed, i can't think of an individual who expressed that individual idealism which is so peculiar to Western culture better then George Enescu.

Thanks for your reply. Yet please clarify what "Europe" means to you --- Romanian geographical territory has always been part and parcel of the European continent. The Romanian people is officially claimed to be a mixture of mainly Romans, Dacians (a branch of Thracians) and, in a lesser percentage, Slavs. I would add Cumans, Petchenegs, Goths, Celts, Alans / Sarmatians. Most of these are Indo-European peoples.

[karlhenning]

This is a good, insightful answer.

Kind of you, thank you!

So, a few questions more, if you don't mind:
-If God didn't actually "need" our love, why bother creating us? Diversion?

He wished it, I suppose. "Why did God do so-&-so?" can be a difficult question to answer, short of asking the Most High, Himself.  That does not satisfy one's natural curiosity, of course;  and there's nothing at all wrong with the curiosity (again: of course).  One small portion of wisdom is learning that there may be questions, questions to which we are keen to find answers, but that we'll never know the answer.

This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe.  For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).

Largely, though, my answer is a fine distinction between a need on the part of God which is a lack/imperfection, and an act of will.  God created us because He desires there to be creatures who are agents of Love, yet who are of (to a certain extent) independent mind.

-The "Men choose to go there" part... now really, isn't that a really huge simplification?

Oh, certainly.  Or, rather, I think its simplicity is elegant 

Again, one view of the matter is, that Hell is separation from God.  God does not hate anything which He created, He does not desire the separation.  The separation is a result of a certain exercise of our free will.

Choosing a religion or belief is not simply a choice based on logic. It's a partially blind choice, mainly influenced by the people and culture around that person. It's like rolling a dice, and depending on that dice, it may have more sixes or fives than others- or, one may decide to write his own number or consciously put it down on a certain number that may be unlikely.

If the correct answer is a six, everyone else is screwed. I'm not sure that's fair to be punished for this type of scenario, is it?

I'd love nothing more than for this to make sense to me. 

That is a very well-considered question!  And you pose it in a becomingly charitable spirit.

I am going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis very poorly (because it is a long time since I read whichever book of his it appears in) . . . but on his own conversion to Christianity, he remarked that intellectually, he could not have accepted Christianity, if the larger realm of religion was a matter of all of them are absolutely wrong, only Christianity, exceptionally and miraculously, is right!  But that (and for our non-Christian neighbors on the thread, let us emphasize that this is the Christian viewpoint, though to the charitably-minded of them, that will be obvious) all the world's religions reflect bits and images of the truth;  but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth.  Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, "I am the Truth."

I'll stop now, rather than start to seem like a tract . . . .

PS/ Greg, you are close to the magical 6,000-post mark! 

[greg]

Kind of you, thank you!

He wished it, I suppose. "Why did God do so-&-so?" can be a difficult question to answer, short of asking the Most High, Himself.  That does not satisfy one's natural curiosity, of course;  and there's nothing at all wrong with the curiosity (again: of course).  One small portion of wisdom is learning that there may be questions, questions to which we are keen to find answers, but that we'll never know the answer.

This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe.  For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).

Largely, though, my answer is a fine distinction between a need on the part of God which is a lack/imperfection, and an act of will.  God created us because He desires there to be creatures who are agents of Love, yet who are of (to a certain extent) independent mind.

Oh, certainly.  Or, rather, I think its simplicity is elegant 

Again, one view of the matter is, that Hell is separation from God.  God does not hate anything which He created, He does not desire the separation.  The separation is a result of a certain exercise of our free will.

That is a very well-considered question!  And you pose it in a becomingly charitable spirit.

I am going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis very poorly (because it is a long time since I read whichever book of his it appears in) . . . but on his own conversion to Christianity, he remarked that intellectually, he could not have accepted Christianity, if the larger realm of religion was a matter of all of them are absolutely wrong, only Christianity, exceptionally and miraculously, is right!  But that (and for our non-Christian neighbors on the thread, let us emphasize that this is the Christian viewpoint, though to the charitably-minded of them, that will be obvious) all the world's religions reflect bits and images of the truth;  but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth.  Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, "I am the Truth."

I'll stop now, rather than start to seem like a tract . . . .

PS/ Greg, you are close to the magical 6,000-post mark! 

I'll think I'll stop, too, now, since I've run out of steam before I even started to read this post- although i will go over it a few times! Thanks for the response.
As for the 6,000 post mark, I didn't even realize it. 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Josquin,

The study of humanity is my favored hobby.

I have two questions (not necessarily related) if if I may:

1. Could you name a few people whom you believe led especially exemplary lives ?

2. Are claims for an inborn sense of right and wrong unsubstantiated ?

[karlhenning]

Grammatical nit, Eric:

1. Could you name a few people whom you believe led especially exemplary lives ?

It is "who led especially exemplary lives";  so "a few people who you believe led especially exemplary lives." "Who" is the subject in the dependent clause, and the subject of the verb "led", not the object of the verb "believe."

[Florestan]

He wished it, I suppose. "Why did God do so-&-so?" can be a difficult question to answer, short of asking the Most High, Himself.  That does not satisfy one's natural curiosity, of course;  and there's nothing at all wrong with the curiosity (again: of course).  One small portion of wisdom is learning that there may be questions, questions to which we are keen to find answers, but that we'll never know the answer.

This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe.  For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).

Largely, though, my answer is a fine distinction between a need on the part of God which is a lack/imperfection, and an act of will.  God created us because He desires there to be creatures who are agents of Love, yet who are of (to a certain extent) independent mind.

Oh, certainly.  Or, rather, I think its simplicity is elegant 

Again, one view of the matter is, that Hell is separation from God.  God does not hate anything which He created, He does not desire the separation.  The separation is a result of a certain exercise of our free will.

That is a very well-considered question!  And you pose it in a becomingly charitable spirit.

I am going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis very poorly (because it is a long time since I read whichever book of his it appears in) . . . but on his own conversion to Christianity, he remarked that intellectually, he could not have accepted Christianity, if the larger realm of religion was a matter of all of them are absolutely wrong, only Christianity, exceptionally and miraculously, is right!  But that (and for our non-Christian neighbors on the thread, let us emphasize that this is the Christian viewpoint, though to the charitably-minded of them, that will be obvious) all the world's religions reflect bits and images of the truth;  but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth.  Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, "I am the Truth."

Well said, Karl.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei, Karl

What I can't get my mind around is why an an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being - who is more complex than the universe itself - take an interest humans in the first place.

This is why the Spinozistic worldview, however ruthless in what it asks us to give up, will always make more sense to me.

[Florestan]

Andrei, Karl

What I can't get my mind around is why an an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being - who is more complex than the universe itself - take an interest humans in the first place.

This is why the Spinozistic worldview, however ruthless in what it asks us to give up, will always make more sense to me.

Fine. Live accordingly, then! I have no objection at all.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Thanks Andrei.

It's interesting....I find Spinoza's "religion of reason" more arduous than any of the laws of the Bible since it asks each of us to develop and sustain a trait we find pretty difficult... namely to be reasonable.

[karlhenning]

That's as maybe; Spinozistic is an arrant barbarism 

[karlhenning]

Well said, Karl.

I thank you for your kindness, Andrei!

[drogulus]

He wished it, I suppose. "Why did God do so-&-so?" can be a difficult question to answer, short of asking the Most High, Himself.  That does not satisfy one's natural curiosity, of course;  and there's nothing at all wrong with the curiosity (again: of course).  One small portion of wisdom is learning that there may be questions, questions to which we are keen to find answers, but that we'll never know the answer.

This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe.  For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).

      In order to escape a damning comparison with science believers now are prone to say that religion is not about knowledge, and based on your learned supposings on a gods mind there must be something to that. However, there's more to not being about knowledge than just musings about imaginary beings, though. There are comparisons to be made with scientists! Are you sure you want to do that? 

     

Thanks Andrei.

It's interesting....I find Spinoza's "religion of reason" more arduous than any of the laws of the Bible since it asks each of us to develop and sustain a trait we find pretty difficult... namely to be reasonable.

     I think you misunderstand, Eric. Being reasonable here would mean in the pursuit of truth. It doesn't mean you have to be good at it. He's recommending a method, not telling everyone they have to be smart. And truth pursuers will always be a small proportion of the populace.

     Actually I raised this point in another post, so I'm not really disagreeing with you. Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous, and there will be temptations to dive into virtuous certainties. Perhaps this choice is only available for those who don't think there is a choice. I'm one of those who thinks that I'm not supposed to freely choose beliefs. If I don't freely choose beliefs about arithmetic or the reforms of Diocletian how much freedom should I have to defy reason and evidence to freely believe what appears on first and all later inspections to be balderdash? It brings me up short even now to realize that this imperative is not universally recognized. Really, I should know better, shouldn't I? 

[karlhenning]

      In order to escape a damning comparison with science . . . .

Droll, Ernie, droll.

[karlhenning]

. . . Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous . . . .

It will also seem, upon various specific applications, to be a misapplication of the faculty.

And (to repeat a not-at-all new idea) this seems to me especially obvious on a board dedicated to the discussion of music.

The idea that reason can be applied to everything in life, is itself irrational.

Most of us present have got over that long ago.  Those of us who are married, rather earlier than some others.

[Florestan]

      In order to escape a damning comparison with science believers now are prone to say that religion is not about knowledge

The comparison between religion and science is made only by those who misunderstand them both.

         Actually I raised this point in another post, so I'm not really disagreeing with you. Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous, and there will be temptations to dive into virtuous certainties. Perhaps this choice is only available for those who don't think there is a choice. I'm one of those who thinks that I'm not supposed to freely choose beliefs. If I don't freely choose beliefs about arithmetic or the reforms of Diocletian how much freedom should I have to defy reason and evidence to freely believe what appears on first and all later inspections to be balderdash? It brings me up short even now to realize that this imperative is not universally recognized. Really, I should know better, shouldn't I? 

I'm afraid I can't help but saying that this convoluted, meaningless verbiage does little service to your cause.

[Florestan]

The idea that reason can be applied to everything in life, is itself irrational.

Word.

[Florestan]

I thank you for your kindness, Andrei!

You're welcome.  0:)

[Fëanor]

...
This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe.  For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).
...

As for science, it isn't about answers so much as the search for them.  Science, properly done, is the quintessential skeptical activity.  All "answers" are a some-time things.  The strength of science and the good scientist are that they thrieve upon incertainty.  Uncertainly isn't a quality of religions or much admired by religionists.

I am going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis very poorly (because it is a long time since I read whichever book of his it appears in) . . . but on his own conversion to Christianity, he remarked that intellectually, he could not have accepted Christianity, if the larger realm of religion was a matter of all of them are absolutely wrong, only Christianity, exceptionally and miraculously, is right!  But that (and for our non-Christian neighbors on the thread, let us emphasize that this is the Christian viewpoint, though to the charitably-minded of them, that will be obvious) all the world's religions reflect bits and images of the truth;  but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth.  Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, "I am the Truth."

I'll stop now, rather than start to seem like a tract . . . .
...

Too late I fear.  

From the persective of global society this is the key problem with relgions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".  A majority of the worlds problems today are either directly caused, are gravely exacerbated, by these beliefs.

[karlhenning]

As for science, it isn't about answers so much as the search for them.  Science, properly done, is the quintessential skeptical activity.  All "answers" are a some-time things.  The strength of science and the good scientist are that they thrieve upon incertainty.  Uncertainly isn't a quality of religions or much admired by religionists.

Excellent remarks, apart from a curious (and at first blush, tendentiously prejudicial) curtain-line!  For as long as I have had any awareness of religion, a key element has been awed approach unto a mystery.  Mystery and uncertainty are not quite the same thing, but mystery and certainty are even less the same thing.

Uncertainty seems to be Ernie's great bugbear . . . he eagerly professes faith in reason's capacity to penetrate all the darkness in the world!

Too late I fear.  

Hah!   

If you take it thus, of course, I can simply point out that no one obliged you to read it 

From the persective of global society this is the key problem with relgions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".

That remark suggests that you did not quite read my original citation. I am comfortable with the uncertainty, however.

A majority of the worlds problems today are either directly caused, are gravely exacerbated, by these beliefs.

We agree again.  One of our recurring points, is that quite comparably serious problems are the result of similar beliefs, on the part of (to adapt your term) "anti-religionists."

[Florestan]

From the persective of global society this is the key problem with relgions

Making "the perspective of the global society" the standard by which all human endeavours should be judged you fall victim to exactly the same mentality you are denouncing, hastily and erroneous, in people of faith.

their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".

Here on GMG there are a few religious people. Please provide evidence that anyone of them has ever maintained what you claim to be the position of all faithful.

A majority of the worlds problems today are either directly caused, are gravely exacerbated, by these beliefs.

The most pressing problems in the last month have been the financial crisis and the swine flu epidemic. What's their connection with religion, pray tell?

[DavidRoss]

As for science, it isn't about answers so much as the search for them.  Science, properly done, is the quintessential skeptical activity.  All "answers" are a some-time things.  The strength of science and the good scientist are that they thrieve upon incertainty.  Uncertainly isn't a quality of religions or much admired by religionists.

How amusing!  These statements make at least as much sense if the term "religious faith" is substituted for "science" in them.

From the persective of global society this is the key problem with relgions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".  A majority of the worlds problems today are either directly caused, are gravely exacerbated, by these beliefs.

How fascinating that he believes he speaks for "the global society!"  Is that like the Shriners? 

I also thought it very strange to damn religion as the cause or catalyst for all the world's problems.  Aside from their contribution to population growth--which is the bogeyman, and to which science's fruit is the major contributor--religions in general arguably offer far more help than harm in dealing with humankind's problems.

[jwinter]

...Most of us present have got over that long ago.  Those of us who are married, rather earlier than some others.

[Fëanor]

...
That remark suggests that you did not quite read my original citation. I am comfortable with the uncertainty, however.
...

Well ... but I took this remark, "... but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth.  Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, 'I am the Truth.", to be your own, not part of the Lewis qwote.

[Fëanor]

How amusing!  These statements make at least as much sense if the term "religious faith" is substituted for "science" in them.
...

You evidently misunderstand science.  Science is about breaking down received wisdom whereas religion is about promoting it, (the rare religious philosopher aside).

I also thought it very strange to damn religion as the cause or catalyst for all the world's problems.  Aside from their contribution to population growth--which is the bogeyman, and to which science's fruit is the major contributor--religions in general arguably offer far more help than harm in dealing with humankind's problems.

Oh, please.  

[DavidRoss]

You evidently misunderstand science.  Science is about breaking down received wisdom whereas religion is about promoting it, (the rare religious philosopher aside).

You evidently misunderstand both science and religion.  Your statements suggest strongly that you are not amenable to correcting your misunderstanding, so there's no point in trying.

[Fëanor]

...
Here on GMG there are a few religious people. Please provide evidence that anyone of them has ever maintained what you claim to be the position of all faithful.
...

The arguement does not require that I prove all religionists believe they are totally right and the other guy wrong.  It is sufficient that it is typically the case.

[Que]

JdP's continuous exposée on European Jewry culminated in a very nasty and unhealthy post, which was deleted, as was the whole series of posts leading up to it, as were the replies to those posts.

Q

[Bulldog]

JdP's continuous exposée on European Jewry culminated in a very nasty and unhealthy post, which was deleted, as was the whole series of posts leading up to it, as were the replies to those posts.

Q

Good move. 

[DavidRoss]

Thank you for not trying.  On the balance of probability I suspect I wouldn't hear a convincing arguement.

At least you're droll...I'll give you that, and thank you for your good humor.   

[Xenophanes]

That's as maybe; Spinozistic is an arrant barbarism 

That may well be  , but it's still an adjective in the dictionary. For example:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spinozistic

[karlhenning]

That may well be  , but it's still an adjective in the dictionary. For example:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spinozistic

Ah, in the dictionary known as dictionary.com . . . it's a wiki, wiki world . . . .

[Xenophanes]

Andrei, Karl

What I can't get my mind around is why an an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being - who is more complex than the universe itself - take an interest humans in the first place.

This is why the Spinozistic worldview, however ruthless in what it asks us to give up, will always make more sense to me.

Spinoza did develop an ethics which has a certain nobility.  Here is a link to a passage from Erich Fromm's Man for Himself:

http://books.google.com/books?id=442AUfGqnhIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=fromm+spinoza&source=bl&ots=72hhDIwh1D&sig=8p-OVFEQX554BkHfRm1-OvHlpNA&hl=en&ei=mMsWSvMSl8QyjqPYrwg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA26,M1

[karlhenning]

Ah, in the dictionary known as dictionary.com . . . it's a wiki, wiki world . . . .

I was expecting a formation more on the order of Spinozian . . . and the OED shows entries for Spinozian, Spinozist (which I was taking as a precursor to) and Spinozistic.

That last is surely sonic barbarity 

[Xenophanes]

Ah, in the dictionary known as dictionary.com . . . it's a wiki, wiki world . . . .

It's also in Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, Canadian Edition, 1976. Dictionary.com gets its words from a number of dictionaries.

[karlhenning]

It's also in Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, Canadian Edition, 1976. Dictionary.com gets its words from a number of dictionaries.

Yes; and I was being a bit facetious, you know.

Still, in the spirit of due diligence, I think that a degree of skepticism towards on-line sources is simply sound practice. Non è vero?

[Homo Aestheticus]

I think you misunderstand, Eric.

Being reasonable here would mean in the pursuit of truth. It doesn't mean you have to be good at it. He's recommending a method, not telling everyone they have to be smart. And truth pursuers will always be a small proportion of the populace.

Thanks for the minor clarification there.

It also brightened my mood.

[karlhenning]

And truth pursuers will always be a small proportion of the populace.

Many of the truth pursuers, historically, have been people of faith.

If he were interested in the truth, Ernie would own at least that much.

[Xenophanes]

Yes; and I was being a bit facetious, you know.

Still, in the spirit of due diligence, I think that a degree of skepticism towards on-line sources is simply sound practice. Non è vero?

Yes, and I agree it's a sonic barbarity, too.

[Josquin des Prez]

Spinoza did develop an ethics which has a certain nobility.  Here is a link to a passage from Erich Fromm's Man for Himself:

What's with the endless fascination this forum has for Marxist writers? I don't get it.

[karlhenning]

You evidently misunderstand both science and religion.  Your statements suggest strongly that you are not amenable to correcting your misunderstanding, so there's no point in trying.

His embrace of uncertainty goes only so far, after all, Dave . . . .

[Fëanor]

His embrace of uncertainty goes only so far, after all, Dave . . . .

The only thing I'm certain about is the value of skepticism.

I'm sufficiently convinced of the ideas that we would be better off being mutually supportive and that we ought protect our environment, that I'm will to give them a try.

[Florestan]

 Science is about breaking down received wisdom whereas religion is about promoting it

Wrong on both accounts.

[drogulus]

. . . Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous . . . .

It will also seem, upon various specific applications, to be a misapplication of the faculty.

And (to repeat a not-at-all new idea) this seems to me especially obvious on a board dedicated to the discussion of music.

The idea that reason can be applied to everything in life, is itself irrational.

Most of us present have got over that long ago.  Those of us who are married, rather earlier than some others.

     It should be applied to questions concerning what is true. Always. Not all of life is a pursuit of truth, and the discussions about the greatest composer show that many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing. I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.

Many of the truth pursuers, historically, have been people of faith.

If he were interested in the truth, Ernie would own at least that much.

     And they used to be polytheists, too. I wouldn't worry about it, though.

[Florestan]

The arguement does not require that I prove all religionists believe they are totally right and the

But that's exactly what you claimed.

[DavidRoss]

...many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing [yourself included].  I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.

That would be a welcome change. 

[drogulus]

     I'm not a Christian. It has never occured to me that being better off had anything to do with this. It doesn't occur to me now that I'm an atheist because I'm better off being one. To me atheist means not having a religion. The question of who is better off comes downstream, after the decision has more properly been made on the basis of what reason and evidence recommends. Many believers also think so since they offer reasoning and evidence in support of their view that reason and evidence are not to be relied on for such questions.* Why am I not convinced by such maneuverings?

     _{* Maybe they would be better at supporting their claims if they took their own advice and stopped at the point of saying they believed no matter how stupid the claims are. Believers could support their view with sheer enthusiasm coupled with indignation. Instead the believers comes off as half rational, rational enough to suppose that a thin application of reason dreeses up their position but not rational enough to see it doesn't help.}

[Homo Aestheticus]

From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".

Very true, Feanor.

And this just in today from the new Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols:

At the installation of the Most Rev Vincent Nichols at Westminster Cathedral, his predecessor, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, described a lack of faith as "the greatest of evils" and blamed atheism for war and destruction, implying that it was a greater evil even than sin itself.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6344175.ece

A lack of faith as the greatest of evils ?   Excuse me ?    

Mind you, this is the same man who just yesterday praised the "courage" of Irish priests who abused children from the 1930's to 1990's and then confessed.

His words:

"It took courage for religious orders and clergy to face the facts from their past. They are the real heroes of this story by finding the courage to come forward."

******

I am flabbergasted.

[Xenophanes]

What's with the endless fascination this forum has for Marxist writers? I don't get it.

Spinoza died in 1677.  Marx was born in 1818.  Spinoza could hardly have been a Marxist!

[drogulus]

Spinoza died in 1677.  Marx was born in 1818.  Spinoza could hardly have been a Marxist!

    Jesus walked on water. Stop being a metaphysical prig.  

[Fëanor]

But that's exactly what you claimed.

Not at all.  What I said was, "From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is 'exceptionally and miraculously right' and the rest 'absolutely wrong'".  I didn' say "all their proponents".  There's a difference.  English is a syntactical language.

[Brian]

     It should be applied to questions concerning what is true. Always. Not all of life is a pursuit of truth, and the discussions about the greatest composer show that many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing. I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.


     And they used to be polytheists, too. I wouldn't worry about it, though.

I don't know who rewrote the title of this thread, but it is absolutely genius.

[Xenophanes]

    Jesus walked on water. Stop being a metaphysical prig.  

Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one), whereas all I did was link to a page where Fromm says something about Spinoza's anthropology and ethics, JdP doesn't have anything to say about that. So I tried to direct him back to Spinoza's philosophy, not that I know that much about it. But I think Spinoza's philosophy should be allowed to make whatever contribution it can.

The UP has expressed some appreciation of Spinoza's philosophy.  I believe that every great philosophy has elements of truth, and I further believe that we have to approach people where they are.  I have tried to suggest to The UP that he try to see if he can be a good Spinozist for now, if that is what he wants.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one)

You didn't know he was a Marxist? It says so in his bloody Wikipedia bio.

[DavidRoss]

Not at all.  What I said was, "From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is 'exceptionally and miraculously right' and the rest 'absolutely wrong'".  I didn' say "all their proponents".  There's a difference.  English is a syntactical language.

Yes, and "all their proponents believe" = "their proponents all believe."

[drogulus]

Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one), whereas all I did was link to a page where Fromm says something about Spinoza's anthropology and ethics, JdP doesn't have anything to say about that. So I tried to direct him back to Spinoza's philosophy, not that I know that much about it. But I think Spinoza's philosophy should be allowed to make whatever contribution it can.

The UP has expressed some appreciation of Spinoza's philosophy.  I believe that every great philosophy has elements of truth, and I further believe that we have to approach people where they are.  I have tried to suggest to The UP that he try to see if he can be a good Spinozist for now, if that is what he wants.

      People could hardly survive a single day if they took the kind of pronouncements made here seriously. We are all materialists when it counts. Usually it doesn't count for much when it's just a discussion, where people fancy themselves believing idiocies to show their virtue. Do people really believe what they say? On the evidence I see here it hardly matters. When you've been educated up in nonsense by people you trust you make do how you can, and hold things true as badges of affiliation. True? What's that?

     

[Xenophanes]

You didn't know he was a Marxist? It says so in his bloody Wikipedia bio.

Errr .... Josquin, I have Erich Fromm's Marx's Concept of Man, Ungar, 1961, 1966, which also contains a long essay by Fromm and Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Karl Marx, translated by T. B. Bottomore, and some others. I don't you or Wikipedia to tell me something about Fromm.

No, Josquin, that is not actually what Wikipedia says, wisely no doubt, since "Marxist" is essentially a meaningless term without specifying what is meant.What is a Marxist?  Can you actually tell us? Which Marxism are you attributing to him and on what evidence? Are you looking at early Marx or late Marx? You do know that there are lots of opposing interpretations of Marx's writings, don't you? 

You are just throwing out what you regard as a pejorative term to discredit Fromm, and that is an argumentem ad hominem.  I picked something easily available on the net about Spinoza's humanism. What do you think of Fromm's comments?  I can only interpret your reaction as meaning you had no thoughts on them at all.

[Josquin des Prez]

No, Josquin, that is not actually what Wikipedia says, wisely no doubt, since "Marxist" is essentially a meaningless term without specifying what is meant.What is a Marxist?  Can you actually tell us? Which Marxism are you attributing to him and on what evidence? Are you looking at early Marx or late Marx? You do know that there are lots of opposing interpretations of Marx's writings, don't you?  

Please don't give me that. We all know what we are talking about. I have several books from him, including the popular Man for Himself, and it is clear to me that Erich Fromm is a social Marxist of the same irk of the Frankfurt school, spouting the same type of filth that ruined Russia during the Bolshevik regime and that is now ruining the west as we speak. At the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing. Everywhere you look you can see it now, and it's tearing our society apart. And what gave those men the right to experiment upon society, treating human beings like test rats?

[Xenophanes]

Please don't give me that. We all know what we are talking about. I have several books from him, including the popular Man for Himself, and it is clear to me that Erich Fromm is a social Marxist of the same irk of the Frankfurt school, spouting the same type of filth that ruined Russia during the Bolshevik regime and that is now ruining the west as we speak. At the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing. Everywhere you look you can see it now, and it's tearing our society apart. And what gave those men the right to experiment upon society, treating human beings like test rats?

We don't know what you are talking about because you neglect to tell us.

At the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing.

Fromm specifically denies that there is no human nature, of course, more than once and at some length. Maybe you should re-read him. You might look in Beyond the Chains of Illusion, My Encounters with Marx and Freud, Chapter III, entitled "The Concept of Man and His Nature."

This still has nothing to do with Fromm's comments on Spinoza's philosophy of man, which is what I cited him for.  Are you at all capable of commenting on that?

[Josquin des Prez]

I can only interpret your reaction as meaning you had no thoughts on them at all.

According to his interpretation, Spinoza is arguing precisely for the type of moral particularism which western civilization has been trying to obliterate since the advent of Jesus Christ. The obvious caveat in his interpretation of the good is: who gets to determine what human nature really is? Science? We are seeing in our present society where that type of thinking is leading to: barbarism.