Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[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."