• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 692 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 12:55 am

Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Lawrence

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
Senior
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:58 pm
15
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

Unread post

Some Thoughts and Conclusions
about things

I don’t’ know who first imagined the concept of “God” but the story of Gilgamesh, written 6,000 years ago, shows people were thinking about a god then. It is a bewilderment to me that in 2015 AD, the people of this world can believe in a power of the universe, who knows all, past, present, and future events in human life, and who, allegedly can control all matters, would create, or allow to evolve, a world such as we find ourselves in today. With the strife among humans, driven by their conflicting beliefs about such a god, and by their pride in the accuracy of their belief, creating so much pain, it is totally inconsistent with the representation that their “God is Love.” I mean, if such a power exists, I certainly cannot comprehend what the goal of such a “God” (s) is for human life. With more than 2,600 organized religions proclaiming they are worshiping the “True” god and each stating their god’s goal of humanity, my plaintiff cry is “Would the real god please stand up?” I want to live the right kind of life I simply cannot determine what that is.

Many people may say, “Well the Bible, Torah, Koran, Upanishads, etc. prove my God is the real God.” My answer is; if we cannot prove God as a fact, it is circuitous logic to use a book, that is represented such a God wrote or inspired, to explain the accuracy, or truthfulness, of the creed of that religion which defines its God. I do not say there is no God for the same reason I cannot say there is a God. I cannot, nor can any other human being, at this time, prove a "God" as a fact for others to believe is true. Neither can anyone prove there is no God. A god exists in the mind of a human. God, therefore is, an incorporeal concept that can neither be proven to exist or not, but is real to the person believing in such a being. Our reality now then, is that the concept of god can only be a singularly unique and personal belief based upon our knowledge. The concept of a monolithic god (s), assumes one defined god fits all people. That concept of truth is as Nietzsche concluded–dead.

A problem I am addressing with these thoughts is organized religion is the only thing we have now, which gives humans meaning. These beliefs are reflected in the thousands of conflicting organized religions' dogmas. I understood Mr. J. Gordon Melton to say, in the seventh edition of his Encyclopedia of American Religions, There were more than 2,600 organized religions shown to exist in America in that book. All of them defining a different picture of their gods. Now I will show you why that is a problem.

A church is defined as a body of likeminded believers. There are some who believe the peoples of the world can come together in an ecumenical spirit. Here is why that is logically impossible. A church reflects what it believes is true about its God in its Creed and Dogma. Those creeds are called a world view. A world view is the logical basis and explanation of belief in their God for an organized religion. As I will show, it is impossible for people to think identically about a corporeal or incorporeal fact; therefore, our reality is the word “religion,” as currently defined, is an oxymoron. However, religion is very much a part of how we are operating at this time in our history. Our reality is, there are thousands of organized religions, whose leaders have devised dogma (Creeds), defining their god and what that god wants of humans. Norman L. Geisler, in his treatise, Worlds Apart, shows why an ecumenical “oneness” is not possible.

He proposes there are only seven basic world views: Theism, Polytheism, Panentheism, Pantheism, Finite Godism, Deism and Atheism. I suggest our social problems are caused by the fact the knowledge, and the logic, upon which each of these religions base their belief, is mutually exclusive in defining what truth is. So many of the leaders of those religions also lack basic humility. It is impossible for there to be multiple gods, (polytheism) and one god (Theism) or no gods (Atheism). Many of these religions, and all of the major brands, believe we can only have peace on earth if each person on earth believes that religion’s creed about their god is the only true god. I submit that such a condition is a logically, physically, and mental impossibility. That the leaders of organized religion maintain this belief today show the mindlessness of the followers of those religions–that is our reality.

At this point of my writing, many people say, “He’s anti God, he doesn’t believe there is a God.” That is simply not accurate and I hope you will continue to read and learn why those conclusions are false.

Defining the goal of human life (sometimes referred to as the reason for being), has been the province of philosophers and theologians. In recent history, social scientist and political scientist have offered a reason for being. Karl Marx’s economic determinism and Freud’s theories are a couple of examples. I don’t know who divided the eras of philosophies proposed by different philosophers down through time into three eras, but they have. From the beginning of recorded history until the time of Emmanuel Kant, who lived from 1724-1804, all philosophies, which attempted to establish the truth about questions people asked about physical life issues and spiritual matters (corporeal and incorporeal issues), were logically based upon the dogma created by the leaders of the organized religions by which the people of their time lived. That era of philosophy, in which religion provided all of the philosophical logic that answers all questions, is called the pre-modern era of philosophy.

Emmanuel Kant introduced the modern era of philosophy by proposing that humanity might be able to discern the truth of physical life issues on earth and formed the basis for the scientific method of studying our reality. He carefully and politically correctly left the religious leaders in complete control of who could propose answers to spiritual matters.
It was left to Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900), to bring in the post-modern era of philosophy by concluding that humanity was never going to find the truth to answer any question, spiritual or physical, and that God was dead.

Here is why Nietzsche’s description of our current philosophical dilemma is accurate. No one can prove there is a God. No one can prove there is not a “God.” A god exists in the mind of a human. God, therefore is, an incorporeal concept that can neither be proven to exist or not, but is real to the person believing in such a being. Our reality now then, is that the concept of god can only be a singularly unique and personal belief based upon our spiritual knowledge. The concept of a monolithic god (s), assumes one defined god fits all people. That concept of truth is as Nietzsche concluded–dead, because, at this time, it is simply impossible to establish it as true.

Many people, not critically thinking about this possible death knell to philosophy, simply ignore that truth is not available to us in the 21st Century and in their ignorance, continue to champion one religion over another. Whether that religion be religious or espoused as scientific truths, is immaterial. All religions, as well as science, suffer from being unable to offer believers THE truth. I will explain why supposed scientific truths are only beliefs.

Most people outside the domain of science see the ‘scientific method’ as progressing from proof to proof. Scientists have a very different view; they speak not of ‘proof,’ but of ‘subject to falsification.’ The difference is profound! Scientists know that proof of truth is unattainable. A proof of truth would require an exhaustive search of the universe to confirm the absence of a single exception to a theory. Such an exhaustive search is unbounded, and therefore impossible. An idea may well be true, but science has established that the proof of truth about any finite condition in the universe is logically unattainable. When proof of falsehood is unattainable, only “belief” is left, and that belief cannot be open to study by the scientific method. Proof of falsehood is unattainable about a god (s), therefore our reality is that all knowledge humans have, whether about corporeal or incorporeal matters, is based upon belief.

What then is there left for philosophers to do? Some people say since the opinions of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), philosophy is nothing more than a debating society on the meaning of words. There is one thought attributed to Wittgenstein that I believe is relevant to these thoughts and conclusions. It is presented by James Burke in The Day the Universe Changed, he wrote:
Someone apparently went up to the great philosopher Wittgenstein and said "What a lot of morons back in the Middle Ages must have been to have looked, every morning, at the dawn and to have thought that what they were seeing was the Sun going around the Earth," when every school kid knows that the Earth goes around the Sun, to which Wittgenstein replied "Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun had been going around the Earth?" Burke's point is that it "would have looked exactly the same: you see what your knowledge tells you you're seeing." (Emphasis added.)

Since all knowledge about all things corporeal and incorporeal is based upon belief, it means that all world views are the unique, personal, and therefore different opinions of each person. John Grey’s book “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus” sold more than 50 million copies. It is obvious to me than millions of people agreed with his premise that women and men view the world from a different perspective. However, I haven’t met five people who don’t believe that men and women are worshiping the same god. And that brings us to why there is, and always has been, strife in the world. It also explains why the thoughts I write here are so difficult to understand. It’s like Wittgenstein said, you see what your knowledge tells you you’re seeing. People believe the knowledge they have been taught about God is true. My experience in presenting these thoughts proves Aristotle’s statement true. He said, “It is easier to teach an ignorant man than one in error. In order to teach the man in error you must first convince him that what he believes is true is in fact false.”

I believe Nietzsche was accurate in saying man will not answer our questions about our corporeal (physical) life. It therefore makes science similar to a religion in that science is also just a belief that the knowledge we have is true. Science, because it does not offer a reason for human existence, cannot be considered a religion. I include my opinion about this issue in this writing to emphasize to those who hope Kant’s categorical imperative will replace the superstition they believe religion to be. A categorical imperative denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. Some believe scientists will find such imperatives. Nietzsche and I submit it cannot, therefore will not and is subject to the same criticism I offer about organized religion.

If we stopped thinking at this point my conclusions would leave us squarely in the camp of the nihilist philosophers. There is no reason for living. There is no meaning to life. Although I believe my conclusions up to now are accurate, they are incomplete. It was Victor Frankel in his book Man’s Search for Meaning that showed me there is more for us to think about. The truth of this conclusion he revealed in the dialogue between two Jewish men in Auschwitz in 1943, and it pierces my heart. One man, in his misery lamented, “Where is God?” His friend replied, “Where is man?”

We do not have to be victims of the governments and religions we have created. It is my hope that if my thoughts and conclusions have any truth of our reality they may enable us to begin stopping the pain we are inflicting on ourselves and each other. For me to question the governments of the world and the organized religions who validated and justified their murder of more than 100,000,000 (yes 100 million), people in the 20th century causes people to believe me anti-god, anti-religion, anti-government–They believe in error. I believe it is past time for having an open dialogue to discuss how we got to here and see if we might behave differently and not inflict pain on each other. There is absolutely no justification for one person, group, or nation, imposing their will on another. No one, except in their pride, knows “The Truth” about anything.

I submit the objections to having such an open dialogue on this subject show how deeply our human defense mechanisms reflect how inculcated the desire for a god is in humans and how desperately they want to be “RIGHT” about their god. The same defense mechanism is shown by any questioning of the amount of money the US government has given Israel gets marked as anti-Semitic. Such inquiry as is mine about the collusion of organized religion (overt or covert), and governments is a legitimate and reasonable concern and deserves a fair examination. I hope that is the value these thoughts and conclusions might produce. Most people will agree that the goal of peace is admirable but the search is like that of Don Quixote–nothing more than a pipe dream. Never the less, the task to search for peace is a noble one worthy of the effort.
But, judge for yourself. This is the introduction to my thoughts and conclusions about things.
Lawrence
Sandestin FL
March 2015
User avatar
Lawrence

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
Senior
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:58 pm
15
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

Unread post

I am unable to determine if these thoughts have no value or if they are written so poorly they do not communicate an insightful perspective of the subject matter. As an act of mercy, would someone please post a comment. Silence is the consummate rejection.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

Unread post

HI Lawrence, I think you presented most of your ideas before and we had some discussion about them. I don't know why there is no response this time but I don't think it's intended as a slight.
I agree with what you say about different religions often being mutually exclusive though some are more syncretist and can accommodate others without too much difficulty. Still your overall point stands here.
Lawrence wrote: It is a bewilderment to me that in 2015 AD, the people of this world can believe in a power of the universe, who knows all, past, present, and future events in human life, and who, allegedly can control all matters, would create, or allow to evolve, a world such as we find ourselves in today. With the strife among humans, driven by their conflicting beliefs about such a god, and by their pride in the accuracy of their belief, creating so much pain, it is totally inconsistent with the representation that their “God is Love.” I mean, if such a power exists, I certainly cannot comprehend what the goal of such a “God” (s) is for human life.
The problem of evil and suffering are real and many attempts at understanding this and various theodicies have been devised which you don't think are sufficient, from whatever sources.
I can see why you might think this but am not so sure that it is incompatible with a God of the three O's. But it's a difficult problem for sure.
Of course strife among humans has other sources too and I don't see the absence of religions changing this but in some cases it would decrease this.
Who knows though what other ideologies would replace these and the old issues of wealth,power,resources and land would still remain, I expect.
Lawrence wrote:Many people may say, “Well the Bible, Torah, Koran, Upanishads, etc. prove my God is the real God.” My answer is; if we cannot prove God as a fact, it is circuitous logic to use a book, that is represented such a God wrote or inspired, to explain the accuracy, or truthfulness, of the creed of that religion which defines its God. I do not say there is no God for the same reason I cannot say there is a God. I cannot, nor can any other human being, at this time, prove a "God" as a fact for others to believe is true. Neither can anyone prove there is no God. A god exists in the mind of a human. God, therefore is, an incorporeal concept that can neither be proven to exist or not, but is real to the person believing in such a being.
I think there can be indicators of truth or falsehood in these writings. Prophecy is one possible line of inquiry. We live in a sceptical age which is fine within reason but sometimes this seems extreme as in the denial of an historical Christ,or of there having been a town called Bethlehem
The balance of probability is heavily in favour here and if we take the minimum facts approach that he was crucified by Pilate we can find old testament messianic prophecies such as Isaiah ch 53 and others such as Psalm 2 speaking of a confederacy of rulers and the Gentiles against the Lord and his anointed, and with the establishment of his kingdom ultimately.

Other prophecies are often dismissed as retrospective but it's debatable in relation to the destruction of the temple under Titus for example, as to the dating for the gospels whether post or pre-prophecy.
Lawrence wrote:Most people outside the domain of science see the ‘scientific method’ as progressing from proof to proof. Scientists have a very different view; they speak not of ‘proof,’ but of ‘subject to falsification.’ The difference is profound!
We touched on this before Lawrence. You may be correct here but it would require an extreme scepticism to say that we don't know that gravity or other physical laws operate within the known universe even if there may be an exception somewhere in the distant regions.
Lawrence wrote:It was left to Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900), to bring in the post-modern era of philosophy by concluding that humanity was never going to find the truth to answer any question, spiritual or physical, and that God was dead.
Lawrence wrote: It also explains why the thoughts I write here are so difficult to understand. It’s like Wittgenstein said, you see what your knowledge tells you you’re seeing. People believe the knowledge they have been taught about God is true. My experience in presenting these thoughts proves Aristotle’s statement true. He said, “It is easier to teach an ignorant man than one in error. In order to teach the man in error you must first convince him that what he believes is true is in fact false.”
I think you are presenting your arguments as logically reasonable and therefore worth believing but if it's all just beliefs which are unprovable then everyone is in the same quagmire.
You can dismiss my beliefs and on the basis of your logic I can dismiss yours as no more valid than anyone else's which defeats the whole point of your expressing your ideas.
You obviously want a better world and believe this is possible if we can eradicate certain ways of thinking and acting.
I still think the problem lies in human nature which doesn't mean no societal improvement is possible or worth seeking but ultimately your aspirations are Utopian,and unfortunately the name of this planet is Earth.
Not much new from me here Lawrence, but then what really is new under the sun?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

Unread post

Thank you for your thoughts, Lawrence.


What author(s) have you read related to Neitz?
The late Robert C. Solomon and his wife Kathleen M. Higgins are both Nietzsche scholars.

What Nietzsche Really Said by Solomon and Higgins is a very good read. They also have a solid The Great Courses lecture and Nieitzche. It is one of my all time favorites. It's easy to digest and arms a person before tackling Nietizche himself. His writings can be difficult to follow and have been debated by scholars for years. Much of his work and life according to Solomon and Higgins has been misinterpreted and twisted. "God is Dead" is one of Nietzche's most misunderstood doctrines.

The announcement 'God is Dead' is much more than a religious proclamation.
According to Robert Solomon, It relates to the whole mind-set of the Western culture of the time, its value system, and the direction it was headed. Perhaps Nietzsche was a bit prophetic when you consider how secularism essentially rejects spiritual concerns and replaces it with materialism.
From a religious perspective (specifically Christianity) the insistence on eternity, the obsession with both unity and coherence and the unreasonable demands for predictability and justice in a world is not altogether reasonable.

I do not recall Nietzsche commenting the death of God's death being due to a lack of evidence. His line of reasoning was reducing Christianity to its roots, at which point a psychological evaluation could be adequately made as to the reason(s) for belief in the God of Christianity. Christians were an enormously oppressed group. They were the powerless seeking substantiation.

Nietzsche's claim is that the notion of God is built right into IndoEuropean grammar. It is language that shapes our view of the world and our metaphysical interpretations. Also, language shapes our notions of science and truth.

Ironically,Nietzsche never escaped his Lutheran upbringing as he often used images drawn from Luther (ie philosophizing with a hammer, his notions of "masks" etc.) He never quite escaped religion.

Nietzsche both accepted and rejected Christianity. He believed it was necessary for the development of Man.
His rejection was mostly because his belief in its psychology being based on guilt (aka "sin" from what I recall) and NOT because the existence of God lacked evidence.

Nietzsche actually praised the spirituality of Christianity, but perhaps most controversial thought the teachings of Christ (whom he admired) had been "perverted" by the Church.
Sin was not something to be seen as a metaphysical fault (the Church's doing). Rather, it was very much a part of nature and it is what makes mankind interesting.

Finally, Nietzsche's concerns were to return man to his innocence, free of false metaphysical guilt trips.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

Unread post

ant wrote:Perhaps Nietzsche was a bit prophetic when you consider how secularism essentially rejects spiritual concerns and replaces it with materialism.
What are some of these spiritual concerns that have been replaced? The only way I parse this is that you're talking about god, miracles, and souls.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

Unread post

Thanks, Lawrence, for your thoughtful post. I'm still reading through and contemplating what's being said.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Lawrence

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
Senior
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:58 pm
15
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

Unread post

To my treasured friends of BookTalk:
I confess and repent of my shameless use of BookTalk to be my critique group. For many years, I've tried to connect with thoughtful people who might help me express the insight I believe I've gained, in meaningful prose. Alas, all have turned away. In editing the piece that opens this post I've added the following:
Nothing I have written indicates a person should not pray to the God of their understanding. What I have written is that it is our reality when you pray to the God of your understanding you are trusting that the power of the universe will answer your prayers. That is as good as it gets. You have to trust your trust in order to have a meaningful dialogue with your higher power. You cannot trust in your knowledge of your God except with your pride.

I've had six preachers promise me they will read my stuff and get back to me. None of them ever spoke to me again. I do appreciate your comments. All comments help me see if it is the content or the syntax that is limiting understanding what I'm trying to express. Best wishes to all, Lawrence
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Some Thoughts and Conclusions about things

Unread post

Lawrence wrote: I don’t’ know who first imagined the concept of “God” but the story of Gilgamesh, written 6,000 years ago, shows people were thinking about a god then. It is a bewilderment to me that in 2015 AD, the people of this world can believe in a power of the universe, who knows all, past, present, and future events in human life, and who, allegedly can control all matters, would create, or allow to evolve, a world such as we find ourselves in today.
Natural Selection sometimes favors survivability over truth. As such we tend to err on the side of caution and this cost-benefit ratio has served us well. According to this theory, religiosity has low error costs when compared to its social cohesion benefits. Clearly some folks are more religious than others and some argue that religiosity may be an artifact—or spandrel—of conditions in the past. In the modern world, so the argument goes, truth is an increasingly valuable commodity. We tend to make errors when our religious (emotion) overrides our intellect. And this is more costly now than it used to be when we lived on the savannah.

On the other hand, we also know that the power of belief is itself a very positive psychological trait even today. The famous American philosopher, William James, was a staunch pragmatist early in life. But as he got older, he argued that religious faith—like belief in one's own ability to accomplish a difficult task—can also be rational even if that religious belief itself cannot be demonstrated to be true.

I think this is such an important idea. Religious faith can be rational even if that religious belief itself cannot be demonstrated to be true.

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

By the way, even Nietsche decried the "delusion" of Greek logicians like Socrates and Plato who oversold rational intelligence as the only virtue. Nietsche believed that every civilization goes through stages of rise and decline and that his own society was in decline.

"In its youth a people produce mythology and poetry; in its decadence, philosophy and logic. In its youth Greece produced Homer and Aeschylus; in its decay it gave us Euripides— the logician turned dramatist, the rationalist destroying myth and symbol, the sentimentalist destroying the tragic optimism of the masculine age . . ."
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”