Posted by The Natural Philosopher on 09/21/07 12:59

Shelly wrote:
> Well said. We are the most intelligent animal on this planet.

That we are aware of.

> We are the
> first to know of our mortality almost from birth. I don't believe any
> other animal realizes that they, too, will die someday in the future.
>
> It is this knowledge of our own mortality that drove us to ask the question
> "why are we here?". In answer to that, we formulated the concept of "god".
> As we matured as civilizations, and our scientific understanding grew, a
> "god" explanation was needed less and less and so the concept became more
> and more sophisticated.
>
> I believe, though, that there is an ultimate limit to our understanding
> (even though I love science fiction). Let's call that "god".

Let's not. Understanding is always necessarily limited: Its been
formally indicated by such as Heisenerg, Godel and others in different
ways, but it all boils down to one thing really: The nature of the beast
doing the understanding of a system whilst being part OF that system
necessarily precludes complete objective analysis of that system, since
the beast is not OUTSIDE of that system.

Positing a point utterly outside the system and calling it God is a bit
dumb, I don't have a problem with the point, or the hypothesis, but
confusing it with a supernatural entity who has *interest in mortal
affairs* is a deep mistake:

There are two meanings to God if you distil the mumbo jumbo down to the
basics. One is some necessaarily philospohical addition to provide a
complete philosophical system - the 'god of the gaps' - wherever
understanding breaks down, paper over the cracks and call it 'god' - and
the other is the entity who has interest in and affects human affairs.

If you take the first then all of religion is completely irrelevant: You
are merely coining a word that is shorthand for 'what we finally can't
and wont ever be able to understand' and the only response to that is to
learn to accept the uncertainty like an adult human being. Worship is
useless.


The second aspect may or may not exists. I have my own ideas about why
prayer works for some in a sort of way, but God in the accepted sense,
it ain't.


What I dislike intensely is, that because the fact of uncertainty and a
necessarily unknown and unknowable quality to the Universe is intrinsic
to the way we understand it, that fact is given the SAME LABEL as an
anthropomorphic Being with interest in human affairs, to whom obeisance
is due, and to whose rules, adherence will produce some notable effects
after death. This is worse than any politicians scam.


> I believe we
> formulated something that actually exists. That is where you, Steve, and I
> differ. Does it change the way we live our lives? No. Does it make either
> of us a bad person? No.
>
> So, is there an afterlife? I doubt it, but cannot say with certainty. In
> the meantime, I will live my life the best way I can, and be the best person
> I can be. I will do it in ever increasing circles. First there is my
> immediate family. Next it is my relatives and close friends. Next it is my
> community, followed by my country. Finally it will encompass the entire
> world. I will do it for its own reward of "feeling good about myself". If
> there is an afterlife, then I will qualify simply by doing what I am doing
> now. If not, I still gain the rewards that I have and continue to have. Do
> I have to literally or figuratively "bow down" to some dead man and accept
> him as "god" to get there if it exists? Absolutely not!
>
> I am a practicing member of my religion because I (a) believe there is a God
> and, (b) far more importantly, want to associate myself with the group of
> people who are like me. I respect what religion has given me and take pride
> in associating with it and passing it down to my children.

Does it matter to you one jot whether any of it is true though?

I man if the world was made by pan dimensional white mice to see if
humans would invent religion, so they could have a good laugh while we
went to church, make a difference?

Are you after truth, or a nice life in a cosy lie? That's the issue.

I have no problem with people who say the latter, and say it honestly.

I do have issue with people who cannot accept that much of ones life -
to quote Castaneda - has to be lived AS IF such and such were the case,
without ever knowing that it is, or isn't. If Chrsitainatity simply said
'It behoves us to act *as if* there were a God and Eternal Life, because
it makes life much better for everyone' then I would be a Christian
tomorrow. Its this insistence on Faith that gets me. Even if they said
'faith consists in temporary suspension of disbelief, and belief in
something that isn't there in order to get you to perform the magical
ritulas of prayer in the right frame of mind' I could just about accept
it. Its the literalness that bugs me.

"God is a fact" "The Bible is accurate in every detail and a historical
fact: It is not in any sense allegorical"

Bollocks.




> Does that blind
> me to other views and questioning? If it did, then I would lose that
> wonderful essence of what being human is all about. It is why I pity people
> like Herb and am disappointed in people like Jerry -- people who simply
> cannot remove their blinders and step out of their comfort zone.

Jerry is simply a bigot. H has allowed religion to feature so largely in
his life that it has transformed him from a logical person into a
moralising self righteous idiot. He is ADDDICTED to God. He could not
actually face life without it. Not for him any crisis of faith, and a
rediscovery of the truth.. He is confirmed in his positions, and will
never ever question anything or attempt any radical reorganisation of
his wordvieew ever again.



>
> Steve, I disagree with you on atheism, but I fully understand your point of
> view. It is more rational than mine, but I am willing to take that "leap of
> faith", albeit from a point far, far futher down the road of logic that
> those others. Also, and most important, it works for me.
>

A sensible person makes his leaps of faith as small as possible.

[Back to original message]