Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: jeremyp on April 03, 2016, 05:02:50 PM
-
Agnotology is the new word for the deliberate spreading of ignorance
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance
as somebody on Slashdot said, this has been going on for 6,000 years...
-
Now there's a man who will never be out of a job.
-
That is something that could change from time to time, society to society and even person to person..
Is the idea of God and after-life....knowledge or ignorance? I would say definitely knowledge....and you would say definitely ignorance!
Knowledge is not just information. Its about how we put together information meaningfully. The same information can be put together knowledgeably or ignorantly....to give different pictures of reality.
-
But do they know it's called that?
-
Is the idea of God and after-life....knowledge or ignorance? I would say definitely knowledge....and you would say definitely ignorance!
No, it's not knowledge or ignorance ... it's just wishful thinking.
-
Agnotology is the new word for the deliberate spreading of ignorance
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance
as somebody on Slashdot said, this has been going on for 6,000 years...
It sounds to me that the word is a misnomer, in the (quoted) example of the tobacco industry, it's not so much ignorance that is spread as deliberate lies.
Why not just call a lie a lie?
-
Why not just call a lie a lie?
Because lying is illegal. It's about perpetrating lies but without ever being in a situation where it can be proved in a court of law.
-
Because lying is illegal. It's about perpetrating lies but without ever being in a situation where it can be proved in a court of law.
Terminological inexactitude then if you think it would make the lawyers happier - but it's not spreading ignorance, it's spreading misinformation.
-
That is something that could change from time to time, society to society and even person to person..
Is the idea of God and after-life....knowledge or ignorance? I would say definitely knowledge....and you would say definitely ignorance!
Knowledge is not just information. Its about how we put together information meaningfully. The same information can be put together knowledgeably or ignorantly....to give different pictures of reality.
Interesting use of the word 'knowledge'.
From a philosophical point of view, defining exactly what one means by (propositional) knowledge is a bit tricky. Traditionally (Plato IIRC) it was viewed as "justified true belief"*, that is, it's something you believe, it is true and you can offer justification for it (the idea being that you can't have knowledge from a random guess, even if it's true). However, there are some rather tricky counterexamples (Gettier) that seem to show that there are significant problems with this definition.
Science, on the other hand, deals with theories can be justified from the current, intersubjectively verifiable evidence (Popper). There is no requirement that theories be true in some absolute sense, just that they have stood up to all attempts at falsification.
To take your examples. The word 'god' is way too imprecise (it is understood to mean so many different things to different people) for the statement "god exists" to even form a meaningful proposition, without further definition.
However, I have yet to hear anything approaching a reasonable justification for any of its many definitions (except those that equate 'god' to the universe, some part of the universe, or the laws of nature). So the traditional notion of knowledge is out (unless you can provide a definition and justification). As for intersubjectively verifiable evidence goes: I have never heard of any.
The afterlife would also fall down in both cases.
So, how would you define knowledge in such a way as those two beliefs are included and different, far-fetched ideas (that you don't like) are excluded (purple aliens from Andromeda, a different and incompatible god to the one you defined, the ghost of Plato talks to you in your dreams every night, the moon is a hologram, alien abductions, and so on)?
* The Oxford Dictionaries site still give this as the phiosphical sense of the word.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge
-
To take your examples. The word 'god' is way too imprecise (it is understood to mean so many different things to different people) for the statement "god exists" to even form a meaningful proposition, without further definition.
Of course it's perfectly possible to prove that God exists if you define God in the right way.
We might say that "God is that force in the universe that brings about ordered complexity out of the random chaos " (the god of anti-entropy as someone on this forum once observed)
We look about us and we see life is a highly ordered series of processes (of which we are a part) - therefore God exists!
-
Of course it's perfectly possible to prove that God exists if you define God in the right way.
We might say that "God is that force in the universe that brings about ordered complexity out of the random chaos " (the god of anti-entropy as someone on this forum once observed)
We look about us and we see life is a highly ordered series of processes (of which we are a part) - therefore God exists!
You could indeed do that; but if so, how are the usual suspects going to fob us off by claiming that a blind natural process of matter-energy (a) requires praise and worship at regular intervals, (b) wants animals slaughtered a certain way and (c) doesn't like same-sex marriage? If God is merely a label for a force that produces order in matter-energy in some cases, where's the ability to control people's lives in that?
Can't see that one flying, can you?
-
You could indeed do that; but if so, how are the usual suspects going to fob us off by claiming that a blind natural process of matter-energy (a) requires praise and worship at regular intervals, (b) wants animals slaughtered a certain way and (c) doesn't like same-sex marriage?
But then you could be accused of arbitrarily excluding mind/and or direction and governance in these matters.
I would imagine God has the same dislike of linguistic piracy as we all do ;)
-
But then you could be accused of arbitrarily excluding mind/and or direction and governance in these matters.
Nothing arbitrary about excluding something that lacks elementary definition let alone evidence.
I would imagine God has the same dislike of linguistic piracy as we all do ;)
You can imagine it because that's all you can do, eh, Vlad ;)
-
But then you could be accused of arbitrarily excluding mind/and or direction and governance in these matters.
How many times do you have to be told, Vlad?
I (and I'm sure many others) don't exclude the possibility of mind or 'direction' (whatever you mean by that), just that we see no evidence for it - no reason to regard it as at all probable.
-
You could indeed do that; but if so, how are the usual suspects going to fob us off by claiming that a blind natural process of matter-energy (a) requires praise and worship at regular intervals, (b) wants animals slaughtered a certain way and (c) doesn't like same-sex marriage? If God is merely a label for a force that produces order in matter-energy in some cases, where's the ability to control people's lives in that?
Can't see that one flying, can you?
Such things are way outside my proposed definition so I wouldn't even wish to speculate.
-
Your proposed definition answers the question though doesn't it?
-
Your proposed definition answers the question though doesn't it?
I'd say that my proposed definition is just a different way of looking at 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It answer no questions but raises many.
-
I'd say that my proposed definition is just a different way of looking at 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It answer no questions but raises many.
It answers the questions I posed in #10.
-
Nothing arbitrary about excluding something that lacks elementary definition let alone evidence.
You can imagine it because that's all you can do, eh, Vlad ;)
Even Dawkins acknowledges that as far as the world is concerned there is an immediate impression of design.
There is however also the immediate questions of being (in the face of non being), and apparent governance and thence apparent purpose (in the face of chaos).
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
-
Dear Lapsed,
We look about us and we see life is a highly ordered series of processes (of which we are a part) - therefore God exists!
Works for me and that it is an on going process.
Gonnagle.
-
It answers the questions I posed in #10.
If you are referring to the ability to control peoples lives, I suppose it could be argued:
We have the ability to control our own lives (to an extent) and that ability is highly dependant on our beliefs, therefore a belief in God will change our lives.
(this may or may not be judged to be a good thing by others)
-
If you are referring to the ability to control peoples lives, I suppose it could be argued:
We have the ability to control our own lives (to an extent) and that ability is highly dependant on our beliefs, therefore a belief in God will change our lives.
(this may or may not be judged to be a good thing by others)
Not if your proposed definition of God is a force that brings some semblance of order out of randomness.
-
Even Dawkins acknowledges that as far as the world is concerned there is an immediate impression of design.
The point here, as you should well know given your devotion to Dawkins and his writings, being that that impression is mistaken, appearances being known and shown to be deceptive in the light of systematised and organised knowledge (i.e. a spoon in a glass of water looks as though it's bent from certain angles - actually it isn't, it just looks that way for certain reasons that we can discover).
The bonfire remains un-pissed on.
-
Even Dawkins acknowledges that as far as the world is concerned there is an immediate impression of design.
There is however also the immediate questions of being (in the face of non being), and apparent governance and thence apparent purpose (in the face of chaos).
The appearance of design in nature has been explained by evolution.
Your argument is on the same level as: thunder seems to be angry, so there must be an angry god of thunder...
Postulating some mind that orders the universe does absolutely nothing to answer the question of existence (being or non-being) - it just moves the problem away one step.
-
Some,
How many times do you have to be told, Vlad?
I (and I'm sure many others) don't exclude the possibility of mind or 'direction' (whatever you mean by that), just that we see no evidence for it - no reason to regard it as at all probable.
You can tell Trollboy all you like but he has to cling on to the lies of his personal re-definitions to maintain his "ontology" (as he would call it) nonetheless. In Trollboyland the rest of us deny even the possibility of his conjectures, morality isn’t proper morality unless it’s absolute morality, atheists, secularists and humanists are all actually anti-theists etc and wearingly etc.
That’s his basic schtick: make up your own meanings for words, label others as subscribers to those meanings, then attack them for it in the hope that no-one notices that the intellectual cupboard for whatever he believes in is entirely bare.
It’s beyond scummy, but he’ll never change.
By the way, I like your Reply 8.
-
Not if your proposed definition of God is a force that brings some semblance of order out of randomness.
I started off by saying that I didn't want to speculate - but - if we believe that God is the force that brings order out of chaos, it would be a natural progression to believe that we ought to do the same. i.e. God would be associated with a moral code, though different cultures might interpret it in different ways.
-
I started off by saying that I didn't want to speculate - but - if we believe that God is the force that brings order out of chaos, it would be a natural progression to believe that we ought to do the same
No, that seems like a total non sequitur to me. I simply don't see how you get that ought from that is.
-
Interesting use of the word 'knowledge'.
From a philosophical point of view, defining exactly what one means by (propositional) knowledge is a bit tricky. Traditionally (Plato IIRC) it was viewed as "justified true belief"*, that is, it's something you believe, it is true and you can offer justification for it (the idea being that you can't have knowledge from a random guess, even if it's true). However, there are some rather tricky counterexamples (Gettier) that seem to show that there are significant problems with this definition.
Science, on the other hand, deals with theories can be justified from the current, intersubjectively verifiable evidence (Popper). There is no requirement that theories be true in some absolute sense, just that they have stood up to all attempts at falsification.
To take your examples. The word 'god' is way too imprecise (it is understood to mean so many different things to different people) for the statement "god exists" to even form a meaningful proposition, without further definition.
However, I have yet to hear anything approaching a reasonable justification for any of its many definitions (except those that equate 'god' to the universe, some part of the universe, or the laws of nature). So the traditional notion of knowledge is out (unless you can provide a definition and justification). As for intersubjectively verifiable evidence goes: I have never heard of any.
The afterlife would also fall down in both cases.
So, how would you define knowledge in such a way as those two beliefs are included and different, far-fetched ideas (that you don't like) are excluded (purple aliens from Andromeda, a different and incompatible god to the one you defined, the ghost of Plato talks to you in your dreams every night, the moon is a hologram, alien abductions, and so on)?
* The Oxford Dictionaries site still give this as the phiosphical sense of the word.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge
Ok....
Talking of God and an after-life. I have faith in both these.
What is 'faith'? Faith can be 'blind belief' in what some book says or someone says. You just accept it without question. That is one form of faith.
Another form of faith is 'subtle knowledge'. Through ones experience, some people are able to identify and even understand subtle forces and patterns operating in their lives. They can feel and even predict happenings in their lives. This is actually 'knowledge' but not of the variety where information is gathered and analysed rationally.
Its more like the way a child or even a bird for that matter, understands gravity through its experience and learns to adjust its activities accordingly. Once this is done, life becomes fairly smooth. No more sudden and unexpected falls and bruises.
So...according to me....real faith is also Knowledge (only of a subtler variety). How the conscious mind imagines these forces is a different matter and is actually irrelevant.
Faith can therefore be knowledge or it can be ignorance. Its a matter of opinion.
-
Talking of God and an after-life. I have faith in both these.
What is 'faith'? Faith can be 'blind belief' in what some book says or someone says. You just accept it without question. That is one form of faith.
Another form of faith is 'subtle knowledge'. Through ones experience, some people are able to identify and even understand subtle forces and patterns operating in their lives. They can feel and even predict happenings in their lives. This is actually 'knowledge' but not of the variety where information is gathered and analysed rationally.
Its more like the way a child or even a bird for that matter, understands gravity through its experience and learns to adjust its activities accordingly. Once this is done, life becomes fairly smooth. No more sudden and unexpected falls and bruises.
So...according to me....real faith is also Knowledge (only of a subtler variety). How the conscious mind imagines these forces is a different matter and is actually irrelevant.
Faith can therefore be knowledge or it can be ignorance. Its a matter of opinion.
Firstly, you seem to be confusing ability knowledge with propositional knowledge.
Ability knowledge is stuff like knowing how to walk, knowing how to ride a bicycle, knowing how to play the piano, and so on.
Propositional knowledge is about knowing the truth or falsity of propositions, for example, knowing that Paris is the capitol of France, that the moon orbits the Earth, and so on.
So, a child learning to walk is mostly gaining a skill (ability knowledge). At the same time they will gain, through repeated experience, some propositional knowledge For example, if you let go of a rock, it will fall to the ground. A bird definitely knows (ability) how to fly but, as far as we know, is totally unable to even formulating a proposition.
"God exists" and "there is an afterlife" are definitely propositions that are either true or false (although the first needs a particular definition of the word 'god').
So, stripping out the irrelevant ability knowledge stuff, you seem to be saying that you recognise some patterns in your life and sometimes you can predict things and therefore... god and an afterlife.
Did you miss something out? The entire argument, perhaps?
-
Even Dawkins acknowledges that as far as the world is concerned there is an immediate impression of design.
There is however also the immediate questions of being (in the face of non being), and apparent governance and thence apparent purpose (in the face of chaos).
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
But that doesn't point to a specific God (Christian etc.) just something we don't know about or can't fully explain. But if that is true then God isn't the word for it because the word God has many definitions and notions to it all of which don't necessarily refer to the agent or thing you have implied in your post. And as such this 'thing' does not validate any of the religions or belief systems.
-
But that doesn't point to a specific God (Christian etc.) just something we don't know about or can't fully explain. But if that is true then God isn't the word for it because the word God has many definitions and notions to it all of which don't necessarily refer to the agent or thing you have implied in your post. And as such this 'thing' does not validate any of the religions or belief systems.
Jack...
The existence of some form of Common Consciousness and Intelligence has been felt by most people from ancient times. It has commonly been considered as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
It has also been felt that this Consciousness can be accessed from within ones own mind. It is the deepest part of our consciousness. Many methods and techniques have also been created over the centuries for people to control their external mental levels and to thereby access the innermost core. Most of the methods are esoteric meant only for the few who were capable of it, like Yoga and meditations (though they don't remain esoteric any more)
Exoteric or popular methods were also developed such as worship, prayer, chantings, rituals, temple worship and so on. These methods gave rise to many myths and legends and stories which were important in helping people develop their mental faculties. This is how the major organised religions were born...and they also served in maintaining, familial bonds, health and hygiene, social control and cohesion and so on.
So...while the existence of the omnipresent Consciousness forms the core of most major organised religions....religions have also taken on many other functions which cannot be ignored. Religions therefore perform a very useful function in a variety of ways.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
The existence of some form of Common Consciousness and Intelligence has been felt by most people from ancient times. It has commonly been considered as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
It has also been felt that this Consciousness can be accessed from within ones own mind. It is the deepest part of our consciousness. Many methods and techniques have also been created over the centuries for people to control their external mental levels and to thereby access the innermost core. Most of the methods are esoteric meant only for the few who were capable of it, like Yoga and meditations (though they don't remain esoteric any more)
Exoteric or popular methods were also developed such as worship, prayer, chantings, rituals, temple worship and so on. These methods gave rise to many myths and legends and stories which were important in helping people develop their mental faculties. This is how the major organised religions were born...and they also served in maintaining, familial bonds, health and hygiene, social control and cohesion and so on.
So...while the existence of the omnipresent Consciousness forms the core of most major organised religions....religions have also taken on many other functions which cannot be ignored. Religions therefore perform a very useful function in a variety of ways.
The Consciousness: that's yet another god to add to the list then. ::)
http://www.godchecker.com/
This accessing god(s) "from within ones own mind" lark is damned unreliable...
-
Ok....
Talking of God and an after-life. I have faith in both these.
What is 'faith'? Faith can be 'blind belief' in what some book says or someone says. You just accept it without question. That is one form of faith.
Another form of faith is 'subtle knowledge'. Through ones experience, some people are able to identify and even understand subtle forces and patterns operating in their lives. They can feel and even predict happenings in their lives. This is actually 'knowledge' but not of the variety where information is gathered and analysed rationally.
That sounds like a typical case of cognitive bias, agent detection, at work. Once the notion that some unseen force is at work in their lives takes root, many people then compound that by getting into a mind habit of interpreting everything that happens in their lives in that light, ie. confirmation bias, and after years of thinking like that you end up with a runaway effect of profound self-deception. Pretty much all humans are susceptible to these sorts of mind games, we all prefer fantasy to reality at some level or other.
-
On the positive side - this kind of thinking: pattern building, daydreaming, imagination and fantasy make a big contribution to motivation and perseverance. May also boost empathy, trust and cooperation in.with others. It's an essential part of what makes us human.
-
The Consciousness: that's yet another god to add to the list then. ::)
http://www.godchecker.com/
This accessing god(s) "from within ones own mind" lark is damned unreliable...
You don't have to 'add' it to any list. It is a very old concept....and is fundamental to all spiritual ideas since ancient times.
Most spiritual philosophies and religions teach of 'God within', 'Know Thyself', 'Self Realization', Paramatma (Supreme Spirit), Brahman (Universal Consciousness)....and so on. Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence are common characteristics of God/Brahman/Supreme spirit.... in all parts of the world.
-
Jack...
The existence of some form of Common Consciousness and Intelligence has been felt by most people from ancient times. It has commonly been considered as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
It has also been felt that this Consciousness can be accessed from within ones own mind. It is the deepest part of our consciousness. Many methods and techniques have also been created over the centuries for people to control their external mental levels and to thereby access the innermost core. Most of the methods are esoteric meant only for the few who were capable of it, like Yoga and meditations (though they don't remain esoteric any more)
Exoteric or popular methods were also developed such as worship, prayer, chantings, rituals, temple worship and so on. These methods gave rise to many myths and legends and stories which were important in helping people develop their mental faculties. This is how the major organised religions were born...and they also served in maintaining, familial bonds, health and hygiene, social control and cohesion and so on.
So...while the existence of the omnipresent Consciousness forms the core of most major organised religions....religions have also taken on many other functions which cannot be ignored. Religions therefore perform a very useful function in a variety of ways.
Cheers.
Sriram
Yes Alain de Botton, relates this in some of his books, like "The Non-believers Guide to the Uses of Religion", have a read it might help you understand the more reasoned and rational ways of understanding religions, who knows?
ippy
-
You don't have to 'add' it to any list. It is a very old concept....and is fundamental to all spiritual ideas since ancient times.
Of course we do. For a start a large proportion of monotheists would disagree that all monotheists worship the same god, so, even if you think they are all the same basic concept, that is actually adding a separate concept of god.
Interested in what you mean by 'ancient times' and 'all spiritual ideas' as well - ancient Greeks and Romans (for example) were not well known for their monotheism and polytheism is not exactly extinct.
Forgive my cynicism but you made confident proclamations about the history of science not long ago, and what you said was patently untrue...
Most spiritual philosophies and religions teach of 'God within', 'Know Thyself', 'Self Realization', Paramatma (Supreme Spirit), Brahman (Universal Consciousness)....and so on. Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence are common characteristics of God/Brahman/Supreme spirit.... in all parts of the world.
That will be why everybody agrees about god then.
Oh, hang on...
Doesn't work very well, does it?
-
Jack...
The existence of some form of Common Consciousness and Intelligence has been felt by most people from ancient times. It has commonly been considered as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
It has also been felt that this Consciousness can be accessed from within ones own mind. It is the deepest part of our consciousness. Many methods and techniques have also been created over the centuries for people to control their external mental levels and to thereby access the innermost core. Most of the methods are esoteric meant only for the few who were capable of it, like Yoga and meditations (though they don't remain esoteric any more)
Exoteric or popular methods were also developed such as worship, prayer, chantings, rituals, temple worship and so on. These methods gave rise to many myths and legends and stories which were important in helping people develop their mental faculties. This is how the major organised religions were born...and they also served in maintaining, familial bonds, health and hygiene, social control and cohesion and so on.
So...while the existence of the omnipresent Consciousness forms the core of most major organised religions....religions have also taken on many other functions which cannot be ignored. Religions therefore perform a very useful function in a variety of ways.
Cheers.
Sriram
What you have outlined above can be explained by Jungian psychology, except that what you refer to as Common Consciousness is in Jungian terms viewed as unconscious. It is true that this is where religion has its roots, plus the intellectualizing by the human mind, but my post was about the meaning and definition, or lack of focus of, the word God.
People conflate, without a seconds thought, the dogma of religion and the framework that provides for a definition of God with the more nebulous idea of the wonderment of Life and the universe and all that. This mindless interchange between the two is quite obviously wrong and yet theists will use this to justify their specific version of God. My post was pointing out this mistake.
-
What you have outlined above can be explained by Jungian psychology, except that what you refer to as Common Consciousness is in Jungian terms viewed as unconscious. It is true that this is where religion has its roots, plus the intellectualizing by the human mind, but my post was about the meaning and definition, or lack of focus of, the word God.
People conflate, without a seconds thought, the dogma of religion and the framework that provides for a definition of God with the more nebulous idea of the wonderment of Life and the universe and all that. This mindless interchange between the two is quite obviously wrong and yet theists will use this to justify their specific version of God. My post was pointing out this mistake.
But that is the nature of the human mind. What I have written about the Common Consciousness is what the Upanishads taught as early as 3000 years ago. But every Hindu is not a philosopher or a mystic. Most people are emotional, anxious, fearful and distraught. They still needed an anthropomorphic form to worship.
The Puranas and the many gods in Hinduism came along soon after...in spite of the base philosophy of a Common Consciousness. That does not mean the people were making a a mistake by worshiping all the deities or believing all the stories. That is the way the mind is made.
The Bhagavad Gita in fact manages a balance by integrating the philosophy of the Vedanta, Yoga and Samkhya with the devotional aspects of the Puranas. That is why it is a masterpiece and has today become the sole representative and pivotal work in Hinduism....in spite of so many texts and teachings being available.
Actually in Hinduism the word 'God' does not have any equivalent. We either have Brahman or Paramatma or Devas etc. None of them are equivalent to the Christian concept of a God. However even we Hindus use the word God in multiple ways to get across to westerners.
I agree that the word 'God' is loaded and many westerners immediately think of the Christian God....but this is fast changing and with more and more exposure to Indian ideas, it is increasingly becoming a general word....that can be used in multiple ways.
-
Sounds a bit like what was called 'The Perennial Philosophy' where attempts were made to find a common thread which most religious traditions shared and pointed to a universal 'truth'. I seem to remember a book by Aldous Huxley called the Perennial Philosophy about this.
-
Sounds a bit like what was called 'The Perennial Philosophy' where attempts were made to find a common thread which most religious traditions shared and pointed to a universal 'truth'. I seem to remember a book by Aldous Huxley called the Perennial Philosophy about this.
Perhaps. I should read up on that.
The point is that there is a common spiritual philosophy for all humans which is based on a mystical understanding of life. Religions have this philosophy at their core.
But since all humans are not philosophers and mystics, many myths, stories, legends and figures of authority are required to appeal to them These are obviously culture dependent and will have a local flavour.
If we look at the secret teachings of all religions such as ....Yoga, Samkhya, Vedanta, Gnosticism, Sufi, Kabbala and so on...you'll find common elements. If these common elements are understood, the common base of life and of all religions will be understood.
Many Hindus in recent times do in fact understand these common elements and that is why they are so secular and integrative.
-
But that is the nature of the human mind. What I have written about the Common Consciousness is what the Upanishads taught as early as 3000 years ago. But every Hindu is not a philosopher or a mystic. Most people are emotional, anxious, fearful and distraught. They still needed an anthropomorphic form to worship.
The Puranas and the many gods in Hinduism came along soon after...in spite of the base philosophy of a Common Consciousness. That does not mean the people were making a a mistake by worshiping all the deities or believing all the stories. That is the way the mind is made.
The Bhagavad Gita in fact manages a balance by integrating the philosophy of the Vedanta, Yoga and Samkhya with the devotional aspects of the Puranas. That is why it is a masterpiece and has today become the sole representative and pivotal work in Hinduism....in spite of so many texts and teachings being available.
Actually in Hinduism the word 'God' does not have any equivalent. We either have Brahman or Paramatma or Devas etc. None of them are equivalent to the Christian concept of a God. However even we Hindus use the word God in multiple ways to get across to westerners.
I agree that the word 'God' is loaded and many westerners immediately think of the Christian God....but this is fast changing and with more and more exposure to Indian ideas, it is increasingly becoming a general word....that can be used in multiple ways.
Firstly, the point of my post was to tell you that you were not responding to what my previous post had said but you were replying to what you thought it said or what you thought or hoped it was saying - your pet project.
The fact that that is how the human mind is, as you say above, doesn't make it right or true. Children have a childish point of view because they need that as a stepping stone to growing up. It doesn't make what they think as being right or true just necessary at that stage of their life. So people do what they do, as you say, because that is what they need and that need translates into some form of parental super-figure - deities etc. Usually the sage or Wiseman takes that role by channelling that "Common Consciousness", as you put it, as part of the cultural make-up of the society that they are in.
-
Firstly, the point of my post was to tell you that you were not responding to what my previous post had said but you were replying to what you thought it said or what you thought or hoped it was saying - your pet project.
The fact that that is how the human mind is, as you say above, doesn't make it right or true. Children have a childish point of view because they need that as a stepping stone to growing up. It doesn't make what they think as being right or true just necessary at that stage of their life. So people do what they do, as you say, because that is what they need and that need translates into some form of parental super-figure - deities etc. Usually the sage or Wiseman takes that role by channelling that "Common Consciousness", as you put it, as part of the cultural make-up of the society that they are in.
Well....you are agreeing about the Common Consciousness.You also agree that it is a need in people (like children) that translates into some sort of a parental deity.
What do you mean it doesn't make it right or true? The truth is the Common Consciousness. The deity is the form given by people as part of their inbuilt need. It is like a icon on the computer screen that helps people connect.
-
Well....you are agreeing about the Common Consciousness.You also agree that it is a need in people (like children) that translates into some sort of a parental deity.
What do you mean it doesn't make it right or true? The truth is the Common Consciousness. The deity is the form given by people as part of their inbuilt need. It is like a icon on the computer screen that helps people connect.
And icons are not the things-in-themselves, they are just symbols pointing to something. This is phenomenological not the essence itself. It is these symbols that 'carry' the necessary meaning and value-judgements that the peoples' culture needs. Once the symbols lose their potency the meaning and value-judgement goes, and so does the peoples' need for them, and they become once more mere artefacts and items.
-
And icons are not the things-in-themselves, they are just symbols pointing to something. This is phenomenological not the essence itself. It is these symbols that 'carry' the necessary meaning and value-judgements that the peoples' culture needs. Once the symbols lose their potency the meaning and value-judgement goes, and so does the peoples' need for them, and they become once more mere artefacts and items.
Yes...I agree that.... ' they are just symbols pointing to something. This is phenomenological not the essence itself. It is these symbols that 'carry' the necessary meaning and value-judgements that the peoples' culture needs.'
That is precisely what I am also saying.
Your second point.....'Once the symbols lose their potency the meaning and value-judgement goes, and so does the peoples' need for them, and they become once more mere artefacts and items'.
Yes....I agree that symbols lose their meaning as people lose their need for the symbols. But it does not happen enmasse for the society as a whole. Certain individuals may lose their need for the symbol and move on to other means of spiritual growth. But that does not mean there will be no others needing the same symbol. The symbols continue to hold meaning to someone or the other.
In fact, most often, many of the symbols evolve and morph into different forms to suit the changing needs of the people. In India we see this kind of change happening all the time. The Shiva or Vishnu of a thousand years ago is not the same as that of 100 years ago or of today. There are significant differences in the way many deities were perceived in earlier times and now.
You can actually see mythology getting created in India everyday ...thanks to TV serials. Many of the gods, and their stories that are being shown on TV have not been heard of before. :D It is like hollywood has its own version of Cinderalla today as compared to earlier versions. It still has a meaning though it has morphed into something a little different. The message normally remains the same.
-
I think I'd agree most of the above posts; human brains run on iconography in a sense, we run on concepts more than reality; why, because faithfulness to reality would be massively expensive, and also pointless from the point of view of evolutionary biology. The way we perceive the world has been honed to a state of maximum utility at minimum cost in the cause of keeping us alive and reproducing. Theoretical computer modelling demonstrates that species that perceive reality 'as is' invariably go extinct - they lose out to competitors that can survive at lower costs through clever use of inner symbology and conceptualisation.
-
Perhaps. I should read up on that.
The point is that there is a common spiritual philosophy for all humans which is based on a mystical understanding of life. Religions have this philosophy at their core.
But since all humans are not philosophers and mystics, many myths, stories, legends and figures of authority are required to appeal to them These are obviously culture dependent and will have a local flavour.
If we look at the secret teachings of all religions such as ....Yoga, Samkhya, Vedanta, Gnosticism, Sufi, Kabbala and so on...you'll find common elements. If these common elements are understood, the common base of life and of all religions will be understood.
Many Hindus in recent times do in fact understand these common elements and that is why they are so secular and integrative.
Yes, it reminds me of a saying of Jesus: 'You initiates have had the hidden Truth of God revealed to you but the general masses have not. Those who have received this special knowledge can be given more and more but those who have not would be in danger of losing what little understanding they do have. Therefore I speak to them in parables because they lack perception, comprehension and understanding. '
One of the problems with understanding more ancient symbols is what they meant to people of that time and environment compared with what they mean to people now. As an example 'the lamb' is a symbol in Christianity which probably had different and stronger associations for people living 2000 years ago than to now with the shrink rapped version we see in the supermarkets.
-
hmm .. but there is a strong whiff of people being "talked down" to, and of elite groups maintaining power and control.
-
hmm .. but there is a strong whiff of people being "talked down" to, and of elite groups maintaining power and control.
What is your reasoning there. Why is that more acceptable today?
-
Yes, it reminds me of a saying of Jesus: 'You initiates have had the hidden Truth of God revealed to you but the general masses have not. Those who have received this special knowledge can be given more and more but those who have not would be in danger of losing what little understanding they do have. Therefore I speak to them in parables because they lack perception, comprehension and understanding. '
One of the problems with understanding more ancient symbols is what they meant to people of that time and environment compared with what they mean to people now. As an example 'the lamb' is a symbol in Christianity which probably had different and stronger associations for people living 2000 years ago than to now with the shrink rapped version we see in the supermarkets.
It is interesting that Jesus has actually said that... and in spite of that even today, most Christians take the bible literally and do not attempt to understand the secret teachings and the inner development that is the crux of spirituality.
Similarly with Islam.
-
What is your reasoning there. Why is that more acceptable today?
What's happened in the past is done, no point worrying about it. It is today that it would be unacceptable.
We have education and supporting resources available worldwide. Access to information, knowledge and research should be transparently and freely available. People will not accept being treated as an illiterate peasantry.
-
It is interesting that Jesus has actually said that... and in spite of that even today, most Christians take the bible literally and do not attempt to understand the secret teachings and the inner development that is the crux of spirituality.
Similarly with Islam.
There existed a kind of Anglicanism as typified by CF Alexander perpetrator of that horror ''All things bright and beautiful' which typifies the social determinism and hierarchy involved of Hinduism.
Those verses have been rightly dropped from use in the church as I would hazard they are incompatible with the social mission of the church.
Given that, I would want from you exactly is to summarise what these secret teachings are? And if you are unable to because they are secret....how you come by knowledge of them
What the inner development is and what the crux of spirituality is.
-
What's happened in the past is done, no point worrying about it. It is today that it would be unacceptable.
We have education and supporting resources available worldwide. Access to information, knowledge and research should be transparently and freely available. People will not accept being treated as an illiterate peasantry.
But can we make any progress if the New atheists commend ignorance in the very matter they are making money from the eager?
I can recommend ''In our time'' from the BBC. In which the essentials of Christianity are discussed and Bibledex on youtube by the theology dept of the University of Nottingham.
-
But can we make any progress if the New atheists commend ignorance in the very matter they are making money from the eager?
That's very nearly English.
-
That's P very nearly Engl ish.
FIFY.
-
That's very nearly English.
Note to self. Use clearer English when dealing with possible farquytts.
-
Note to self. Use clearer English when dealing with possible farquytts.
Note to everyone else.
Old Chyttfurbraynes has access to a pc again.
-
Note to everyone else.
Old Chyttfurbraynes has access to a pc again.
Thanks for that Seb-arse-tian......(winking smiley)
-
Yes....I agree that symbols lose their meaning as people lose their need for the symbols. But it does not happen enmasse for the society as a whole. Certain individuals may lose their need for the symbol and move on to other means of spiritual growth. But that does not mean there will be no others needing the same symbol. The symbols continue to hold meaning to someone or the other.
These individuals are usually referred to as being prophets or wise men and are a harbinger of things to come. And symbols do die for all at some point, they can't last forever.
-
I think I'd agree most of the above posts; human brains run on iconography in a sense, we run on concepts more than reality; why, because faithfulness to reality would be massively expensive, and also pointless from the point of view of evolutionary biology. The way we perceive the world has been honed to a state of maximum utility at minimum cost in the cause of keeping us alive and reproducing. Theoretical computer modelling demonstrates that species that perceive reality 'as is' invariably go extinct - they lose out to competitors that can survive at lower costs through clever use of inner symbology and conceptualisation.
I don't understand that, can you explain why seeing and taking the world 'as is' should require more energy than relating to it in a symbolic way?
-
I don't understand that, can you explain why seeing and taking the world 'as is' should require more energy than relating to it in a symbolic way?
The volume of information captured by our senses is vast; consider by analogy the computer memory and processing power needed to process high definition live streamed multimedia. Brains have at their disposal vast incoming streams of multimedia data captured through eyes and ears and nose and skin etc. Yet they use only a tiny fraction of that data in the construction of conscious experience. Our sense of vision for instance, is mostly a product of inner interaction between visual cortex and the thalamus, which is 'seeded' by novel sensory data on the optic nerve. The brain stores simplified models of what thing look like, textures, colours, shapes, and a trickle of central optical data coming from the eyes is used to generate our inner sense of vision, and most of peripheral vision is constructed through extrapolation.
Brains need to do what they do at minimum cost. A human brain constitutes 2% of the human total body mass but its calorific consumption is around 30% of the body total. Brains come at a very high metabolic cost so they have evolved minimal cost ways of doing things thus in the case of perception, our experience of reality is not reality at all, but a minimum cost iconographic virtual reality representation. If we could ever see reality as it actually is, we probably would not recognise it at all.
-
Off topic, I know, but I wonder what the effect of the constant use of virtual reality goggles will have on the brain. I remember a scientist who created a pair of spectacles which reversed all images. Left was right, right was left, up was down and down was up. After some time his brain readjusted and he was able to function normally but when he tried to return to normal vision he had a hell of a time adjusting.
-
Yes that's right. Given the pinhole camera set up of eyes, the image falling on the retina naturally is upside down but nonetheless our brains automatically correct for that.
-
Yes that's right. Given the pinhole camera set up of eyes, the image falling on the retina naturally is upside down but nonetheless our brains automatically correct for that.
...and two dimensional, I believe.