Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Why Isn't There Just One?

#11
Carol Offline
(Apr 24, 2017 09:43 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Nice Carol. 

You know, I jokingly started a new religion in the now old defunct science forum. I called it the Knutter religion. Knutter is short for we 'know nuttin' about the truth but we're good at substituting for it. So far I'm the only Knutter on Earth.  Big Grin Knutterism, the only religion on Earth that admits we truly know nothing that's worth believing in or forming a religion over. Rolleyes

I am not sure that could be considered a religion.  However, Socrates would approve of your reasoning.  What is totally delicious about philosophy is learning to ask good questions and make good arguments.  May I offer my understand of god?

I seriously like the ancient Greek concept of logos and believe it is essential to democracy.  Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe.  That is at least in our three dimensional reality, there is a cause for the effect.   Humans have the capacity for reason, therefore, they can figure out cause and effect relationships, and when they do this they can live by reason.  That is what democracy is.  Democracy is not compatible with God of Abraham religions because a god that can violate the laws of the universe can not be a real god.   Saying prayers, sacrificing animals, burning candles, and rituals, do not cause things to happen or not happen, but believing this stuff works can make us feel better and may motivate us to take the action that needs to be taken to achieve the desired effect.  

Motivating ourselves to do the right thing may be less important than preventing us from doing the wrong thing.  It works like this...  
“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Cicero


Now, mother nature's justice does not play favorites.    You either figure out how to survive or you don't and she really doesn't care.  Unlike the God of Abraham, she is not going to come to your rescue if you have sacrificed animals for her or burnt candles and prayed the right way.  Playing war games comes at a price and the price of using military force in the mid east is high!  Not only is the debt for these wars a serious economic problem that means not defending our people from health problems and ignorance and increasing our social problems at home, but it also means increasing resistance to US influence.  This was not so at the end of the second world war when the world saw the US as liberator, instead of as a Military Industrial Complex that threatens them.  That is this chain of cause and effect is a long one and it is something we can understand, and thinking it is God's will that we continue down this path is unlikely to get good results.

Neither will thinking war is a condition of life we can not avoid because it is in our nature to make war, a very logical way to understand the cause and effect of what we are doing and why we are doing it.  Right reason demands we do better than this, and when we figure that out we will be wise and when we are wise we have a better chance of controlling the chain of cause and effect in a positive way.  Science is important to right reasoning, but amoral science that does not consider ethics, and is out of the control of citizens, as the military budget and development of weapons and the use of these weapons is out of our control, will not lead to wisdom, and forces of justice may not be what we want.   Mother nature leaves us free to choose our fate and she will not rush in and save our sorry asses.
Reply
#12
Zinjanthropos Offline
Quote: Mother nature leaves us free to choose our fate and she will not rush in and save our sorry asses.

My dad used to tell me that 'Nature is out to kill you' and he was right. I've adopted this other philosophy as well.....only you can improve your odds of living. The Darwin Awards are testament to that.
Reply
#13
Carol Offline
I like what your Dad said, Zinjanthropos.  Especially young men and women need to hear this when they feel invincible and are prone to taking risks.

Genghis Khan had a man from China, with writing skills, record his history so we can know a lot about him.  The Mongols don't have much farm land and their climate isn't good for farming, so they did not develop an agrarian consciousness.  The Mongols under Ghengis Khan would kill everyone and raze any settlements to the ground returning the land to pasture for horses.  The man from China with agrarian consciousness taught Ghengis Khan to harvest the cities.  That is, demand tribute and if the people pay, let them live in peace.  If they did not pay, kill them or take them as slaves.

In the crescent of civilization around Egypt and Sumer, life was easy so these people could imagine a god or goddess taking care of them.  Where the Mongols live, life is harsh and their god was a sky god that just assume kill pathetic humans with lightning or storms.   They thought the idea of a god taking care of people was ridiculous, so when a city refused to pay tribute, Genghis Khan sent a final message- "Let God's will be done."  And he proceeded to raze the city.  

Religion and fear of God's punishment worked very well for the Mongols because it left those who feared God's punishment so powerless to stop Genghis Khan.  The notion that God punishes people for their sins, lead to the religious folks believing God sent the Mongols to punish them.  This was devastating!  Fighting against the Mongols would now be fighting against the will of God.  

Khan commanded his people to never chose one religion over another, but by the third generation, they divided into groups of Christians and groups of Muslims.  One smart man, got these Mongols to fight each other and that brought the end to the Mongol's rule of the land.  ( Angel  kind of like US rule of oil rich land.  Let the people rule themselves however they want, just don't let them nationalize their oil fields.)

For the origin of religion, these people from the north were always migrating south, and the mix of these people with those who worshiped the Mother of all creation gave us civilizations with military might.  The Mother becomes many gods and goddesses as a city requires many bureaucrats because with the more complex city life it is obvious one god can not do everything.  Now Her son, the sky god who punishes people with thunderbolts replaces the Mother.   Dodgy   Is there anything to argue here?  I think She didn't ask for circumcision, but perhaps castration?   Sleepy   whoops, my bad, I didn't mean that.    Angry   ah, replace me?  make me nothing but a housewife who must submit to a man?  Can we talk about this civilly or do I have to refuse to do my job, so all the crops die and anyone starves?  
Reply
#14
Zinjanthropos Offline
One could argue that monotheists all worship the same god, each just gives it a different name. This should have been dealt with eons ago if one god exists. The different names for one god is obviously a red flag. If anything, monotheists should all be in agreement about divine nomenclature.
Reply
#15
C C Offline
(Apr 25, 2017 10:18 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: One could argue that monotheists all worship the same god, each just gives it a different name. This should have been dealt with eons ago if one god exists. The different names for one god is obviously a red flag. If anything, monotheists should all be in agreement about divine nomenclature.


But OTOH... Even if an _X_ truly exists and has a definite or factual "condition" about it which is independent of personal will and wishes... That still doesn't prevent it from being conceived in multiple ways. Whether the latter is the result of ignorance, practical imagination, self-serving / unilateral agendas or deliberate deceptions. For example:

Like a celebrity or politician being portrayed in differing ways by friends, foes, gossip columns and opportunists; or the celestial lights in the sky being depicted in assorted mythical and other more reasonable models (which would nevertheless not be as how astronomy describes such today). Unlike the latter which may arguably improve / converge into a single consensus conception over time, the "personhood" of the former can be historically subject to an unstable heterogeneity of interpretations no matter how many years transpire. All the more so if it is a reclusive "J.D. Salinger" or hermit governor that only gives cryptic interviews to oracles rather than the public at large.
Reply
#16
Carol Offline
(Apr 25, 2017 10:18 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: One could argue that monotheists all worship the same god, each just gives it a different name. This should have been dealt with eons ago if one god exists. The different names for one god is obviously a red flag. If anything, monotheists should all be in agreement about divine nomenclature.

I totally agree.  

In a world where people had many gods, how did the idea of one god become popular?

(Apr 26, 2017 06:08 PM)C C Wrote:
(Apr 25, 2017 10:18 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: One could argue that monotheists all worship the same god, each just gives it a different name. This should have been dealt with eons ago if one god exists. The different names for one god is obviously a red flag. If anything, monotheists should all be in agreement about divine nomenclature.


But OTOH... Even if an _X_ truly exists and has a definite or factual "condition" about it which is independent of personal will and wishes... That still doesn't prevent it from being conceived in multiple ways. Whether the latter is the result of ignorance, practical imagination, self-serving / unilateral agendas or deliberate deceptions. For example:

Like a celebrity or politician being portrayed in differing ways by friends, foes, gossip columns and opportunists; or the celestial lights in the sky being depicted in assorted mythical and other more reasonable models (which would nevertheless not be as how astronomy describes such today). Unlike the latter which may arguably improve / converge into a single consensus conception over time, the "personhood" of the former can be historically subject to an unstable heterogeneity of interpretations no matter how many years transpire. All the more so if it is a reclusive "J.D. Salinger" or hermit governor that only gives cryptic interviews to oracles rather than the public at large.

Now that was one impressive explanation!   Cool

But I agree with Zinjanthropos that we to argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning.   This does not mean there will be no off shorts, because of human nature and also social nature.  The biggest reason for division for all groups of animals, is our brains can not handle large groups.  Like all animals, we need to know the individuals, and if they are one of us or not.  When our numbers get too large we have to compensate for this and our ability to do this is limited.  Humans are better than all other animals in living with social agreements that it possible for them live in communities that really far beyond their mental capability of dealing with people on a personal level, as all other animals do.  

Not only do we need to know something about the people around us, but we need to feel know too.  It is natural to feel uncomfortable in a group of unknown people, especially if we alone.  This can be going to a church in a new neighborhood, at a professional convention.  We are constantly making decisions between staying in our comfort zone or going outside of it for something not available in our small circle and this has everything to do with picking a church.  Some people will pick large churches where they might meet important people.  Others will pick small churches where they will have more personal relationships with other members.  

What are our internal needs that influence which church we might choose, and therefore, which religious beliefs we will accept?  Do you want a liberal group or a conservative group?  Are you attracted to anti-social groups that make you feel special or a group that is popular with many members?  Why- are people making these choices?  This is behind the divisions in religions, as well as the cultural reasons that divided Hebrew tribes for all others, and separated out Christians, who then absorbed many beliefs, and once again separated by culture and time into Islam.  

Sick  I hate it when my thinking is like breathing, small concept, large concept, small concept, large concept. Religion is a personal choice and a mass choice.  That is we have tribal and national decisions, as well as personal ones, and we seriously need global agreements before entering a war that destroys all life on earth.  What is believable and what is not?  What are conflicts and how might we resolve them?

Democracy is about how to come to agreements.  Religion is not.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)