Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Elgarian,

I apologize; it was not my intention to twist your statements but I'm not sure where you draw the line. What are your criteria for whether a belief or belief system should be respected because they may offer some wisdom ?

[Dr. Dread]

Elgarian,

I apologize; it was not my intention to twist your statements but I'm not sure where you draw the line. What are your criteria for whether a belief or belief system should be respected because they may offer some wisdom ?

It doesn't matter what he thinks. Use your own instincts, Eric.

[karlhenning]

(* sniff *)

[Elgarian]

Elgarian,
I apologize; it was not my intention to twist your statements but I'm not sure where you draw the line. What are your criteria for whether a belief or belief system should be respected because they may offer some wisdom ?

MN Dave is right. We can compare notes while exploring within the labyrinth, but we each need to find our own way out.

I can't give you a sensible answer because I would never actually attempt to frame such a question as you pose - that is, interlinking 'belief', 'respect', and 'wisdom' in the way you've done there. That isn't one question; it's several questions glued together in a way that makes it impossible to respond without confusion. It's getting worryingly close to asking that classic philosophical conundrum: 'Is the King of France bald?'

Suppose I said that I think all organised religions are flawed: does that help you? I don't see how it could. I think all human attempts to unravel the truth about the world are flawed. That doesn't mean they're devoid of value. Newton's theory of gravitation is fundamentally flawed, but it still has value - we can still use it to get to the moon and back. While the search for 'truth' goes on, we can't just put our lives on hold; we need some kind of platform, however temporary, however provisional, however imperfect, on which to stand. And we're all going to make different decisions about how to deal with that existential predicament.

So if you were to decide that a belief in the Coming of the Great Cheese offered you the best platform from which to tackle your particular quest, I'd be puzzled, but would try to be sympathetic. I'd only have a problem if you were to insist that cheese worship were the One True Path, and require that I conform.

[karlhenning]

. . . I'd only have a problem if you were to insist that cheese Pelléas worship were the One True Path, and require that I conform.

Modified for additional applicability  0:)

[Elgarian]

Modified for additional applicability  0:)

You'll have to answer for that when the Great Cheese cometh. 

[DavidRoss]

You'll have to answer for that when the Great Cheese cometh. 

That's twice this morning I've been grateful not to have taken a swig of coffee just before reading a post!

Verily I say unto thee, thy wit, thy wisdom, and thy gracious good humor recommendeth thee.  It's so nice to have another about who obviously misspent much of his youth in the study of philosophy.  As an undergraduate surrounded by more seemingly practically-minded fellows majoring in some form of engineering or the courses of study that in the States usually are regarded as preparation for professional study in medicine, business, or law, I was often asked by bemused classmates why I was studying philosophy.  Tempted though I might have been to say, "So I can reliably distinguish between idiocy and good sense," (a skill in great demand in some places, and sometimes well-compensated, but not at all valued where most desperately needed--in government), I found it easier and more amusing to explain that I planned to start a chain of philosophical consultancy outlets in shopping malls across the nation so that poor, confused fellows like Eric could get help with pressing questions like, "Is the King of France bald?"

In time I ceased being astonished by the number of those who regarded that answer seriously. 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Elgarian,

I think all human attempts to unravel the truth about the world are flawed.

But aren't some attempts clearly better (and more noble) than others ? Don't you believe Spinoza cared more about the human condition than all of the Jewish elders from the synagogue in Amsterdam in his day ?

That doesn't mean that they're devoid of value. Newton's theory of gravitation is fundamentally flawed, but it still has value - we can still use it to get to the moon and back. While the search for 'truth' goes on, we can't just put our lives on hold; we need some kind of platform, however temporary, however provisional, however imperfect, on which to stand. And we're all going to make different decisions about how to deal with that existential predicament.

Agreed, but the difference here is that virtually everything about organized religion is  man-made.

[DavidRoss]

...virtually everything about organized religion is  man-made.

As is Newton's theory of gravitation.  How something so obvious can escape you and the other wannabe rocket scientists similarly afflicted with intellectual myopia is beyond my ken.

I reply, of course, not for Eric's sake, since he's demonstrated for years that he's incapable of meaningful discussion (but what a clever bot!), but rather for the sake of young children who might stumble onto this thread having not yet attained the developmental capacity for rational abstract thought and thus who might not be able yet to distinguish sense from nonsense.

Gosh this is fun! 

[Catison]

Oh Gawd!! Make'r stop! Pu' leeze!

[PSmith08]

As is Newton's theory of gravitation.  How something so obvious can escape you and the other wannabe rocket scientists similarly afflicted with intellectual myopia is beyond my ken.

Well, even if Newton merely recorded observations, there are even more fundamental issues with modern science than gravitation. The modern attempts to create a unified field theory have resulted in some really very inelegant mathematical propositions. Indeed, at the foundation of current notions of matter and existence there is nothing but high-level math. I never see materialists or whatever you want to call them grappling with the real issues with their position; dismantling Christianity will never, ever produce a result that will answer questions about the material world.

[karlhenning]

That's twice this morning I've been grateful not to have taken a swig of coffee just before reading a post!

Verily I say unto thee, thy wit, thy wisdom, and thy gracious good humor recommendeth thee.

Aye, and his white, flaky rind!

[Elgarian]

It's so nice to have another about who obviously misspent much of his youth in the study of philosophy.

Ah, those were the days. Way back when, I gradually accumulated a collection of assorted philosophy books, and tackled them with the same kind of optimism about discovering 'what it's all about', as I tackled science in the hope that I'd find out what the Pleiades 'really are'. Both hopes were doomed of course; but as you say, one does learn a bit, not so much about what 'the truth' is, but about what questions can be asked and how best to ask them. Anyway, this developed into a kind of 5-year itch; so every half-decade or so I'd drag 'em all out again, start at Plato, and work my way through steadily to Wittgenstein, telling myself: 'I'll try harder this time'.

These days the itch to re-engage with that particular kind of thinking is easier to resist, so I'm quite rusty; but I value the bits that have rubbed off. I need all the help I can get: it's not easy, being at the cutting edge of the universe's creative surge, is it?

[Elgarian]

But aren't some attempts clearly better (and more noble) than others ? Don't you believe Spinoza cared more about the human condition than all of the Jewish elders from the synagogue in Amsterdam in his day ?

I'm really not interested in resolving this, even if it were resolvable. I can see that you are, but you're trying to have a conversation about it with the wrong person.

Agreed, but the difference here is that virtually everything about organized religion is  man-made.

David's already answered this.

[Bulldog]

Agreed, but the difference here is that virtually everything about organized religion is  man-made.

The same goes for Major League Baseball.  I don't know what point you're trying to make.

[DavidRoss]

The same goes for Major League Baseball.  I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Major League Baseball used to be about as much of a religion as I could handle.  That was until the last round of steroid scandals.  That's just too much.  The high priests of the one true faith have lost the way.  Where is St. Peter (Ueberroth) now that we really need him? 

I love the speech Ron Shelton gave Susan Sarandon's character in Bull Durham:

I believe in the Church of Baseball. I've tried all the major religions, and most of the minor ones. I've worshipped Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan. I know things. For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I heard that, I gave Jesus a chance. But it just didn't work out between us. The Lord laid too much guilt on me. I prefer metaphysics to theology. You see, there's no guilt in baseball, and it's never boring... which makes it like sex. [...] I've tried 'em all, I really have, and the only church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the Church of Baseball.

[drogulus]

The warrant does not have to be dealt with.  You want to deal with it (which is your right).

   Yes, I want to talk about the subject in preference to talking about the right to talk about it. Isn't that strange?

     

Well, even if Newton merely recorded observations, there are even more fundamental issues with modern science than gravitation. The modern attempts to create a unified field theory have resulted in some really very inelegant mathematical propositions. Indeed, at the foundation of current notions of matter and existence there is nothing but high-level math. I never see materialists or whatever you want to call them grappling with the real issues with their position; dismantling Christianity will never, ever produce a result that will answer questions about the material world.

     Materialists like me think this is a bit of a dodge, a disguised appeal to a form of absolutism. The question about whether some sort of essentialism must underlie materialist models is separate from the preposterisms of Christianity, which are beyond help. I don't assume any foundation beyond what models can predict. To do more would be metaphysical , and the only metaphysics I will tolerate is that which says that there is a world that the models conform to approximately, and that's it. It's the least extravagant choice, and that's what recommends it. I do like to speculate in my free time, though.

[drogulus]

   PSmith08, perhaps I should explain that I think the implications of your observations contain an assumption that something must undergird materialist models for them to be true in a higher sense than mere workabilty. My position is that no such higher truth can ever play a role. All we can do is explore and extend models to cover a wider range of phenomena and this will never amount to uncovering essentials or foundations except in the limited sense that pertains to particular subjects. Maybe that was unclear from what I said before.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Elgarian,

I'm really not interested in resolving this, even if it were resolvable.

Your explanation is not clear to me .... Are you implying that there are equal amounts of absurdity in both organized religion and philosophy ?     

Some religions are very irrational and even ethnocentric...

Also, doesn't Ms. Goldstein makes some good points here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/opinion/29goldstein.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=reasonable%20doubt%20-%20goldstein&st=cse

"Spinoza understood the powerful tendency in each of us toward developing a view of the truth that favors the circumstances into which we happened to have been born. Self-aggrandizement can be the invisible scaffolding of religion, politics or ideology. Against this tendency we have no defense but the relentless application of reason. Reason must stand guard against the self-serving false entailments that creep into our thinking, inducing us to believe that we are more cosmically important than we truly are, that we have had bestowed upon us — whether Jew or Christian or Muslim — a privileged position in the narrative of the world's unfolding.

Spinoza's dream of making us susceptible to the voice of reason might seem hopelessly quixotic at this moment, with religion-infested politics on the march. But imagine how much more impossible a dream it would have seemed on that day 350 years ago. And imagine, too, how much even sorrier our sorry world would have been without it"

*****

Wouldn't this approach be beneficial for us ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

How something so obvious can escape you and the other wannabe rocket scientists similarly afflicted with intellectual myopia is beyond my ken.

David, you completely misunderstood me when I said 'man-made'.   

Christian morality comes from a combination of Jewish and Roman-Hellenic morality and ethics of the C1st AD.

And Jewish morality comes from ancient near-eastern semitic tribal customs combined with those from Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian traditions.

And so on and so on... They all share one thing in common - human beings made them up. The only difference being that humanism is  more honest  about the real source of morality and ethics, that being human culture.