Continuation. (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=15066&perpage=15&pagenumber=13)

This is not a one-one debate between Napster and me, anyone can jump in.

Sorry about the delay. I still can't promise a fast turn around on my replies but will try.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I think you are being a little dodgy here. Does it or does it not contain a real-world referant? If it does, then we could say that the strong nuclear force is indeed embedded into the universe. Very well then, what about the force of gravity?
Which force of gravity? Newton's, Einstein's, quantum mechanics', string theory's? All these are mental constructions to explain that things fall.

Also, what is so different between a circle printed out on a sheet of computer paper and a perfect, abstract circle? Both have the same impact on ones consciousness, that is, the impression of 'round', or some such. Simply because the laws of physics do not allow for a perfect circle in nature doesn't mean that circles do not exist. Perfect circles do not. Yet pi is equally capable of helping you to calculate an imperfect circumference from an imperfect diameter of an imperfect circle as it is of the perfect flavor.It has nothing to do with physics, nor the imperfection of representation of circles. Indeed a perfect circle can be represented:

Circumference = 2 * PI *radius

But a circle, in the pure sense of a mathematical object does not exist. Of course, we think like it does because it's helpful to do so.

BLOB:
I feel that can be explained reasonably well without any outlandish claims.
Since I don't really believe in cause and effect, I don't think reasonable explanations are more 'right' than unreasonable ones. We are perfectly free to take fanciful flights of whimsy throughout the cosmos, and in fact encouraged to do so. As this is my creation, I make the rules. I only meant reasonable in the casual sense - a synonym for "quite" or "very".

Yet if you are a cheerleader for unreasonableness why are you never unreasonable yourself? Indeed it seems you embrace reason like the rest of us:
I suppose He could, but I think rather that God created us with a general tendancy to explore our world, and the clockwork behind the imaginary universe. I don't see any reason why He would choose to take such an involved stance in creating the abstractions we use to deal with the world.More generally why are you making exclusively reasonable statements such as:
We don't really 'need' to do anything about God. He comes to us. We do not need to go to Him.Surely an unreasonable version would be "We don't need to do anything about god therefore we must do something and go to him".

Since I don't really believe in cause and effect, I don't think reasonable explanations are more 'right' than unreasonable ones. whether cause and effect exists matters no more than whether numbers exist. To think as though it does is powerful and well worth doing.

One can think of reasonable explanations, or unreasonable explanations for events.
Everything in your post is reasonable. I think it's arbitrary and not a particularly useful viewpoint, but reasonable nonetheless.

We are perfectly free to take fanciful flights of whimsy throughout the cosmos, and in fact encouraged to do so. As this is my creation, I make the rules.As you know I consider constraints enablers of creativity. Artists constrain their pallettes as creative exercises, for example. The constraint of gravity enables us to breathe and walk.

It is something I am neither proud of nor encourage, but yes, some people choose to give up their world to enter mine, well, as much as I will let them, anyway. I push most of those people away. I distance myself from becoming a guru figure. I won't say that it doesn't stroke my ego, but I have my own life to lead. I don't wish to babysit adults.You mean 'real' people in your local area or online people?

I am not so condescending. Few people actively search for enlightenment, usually troubled souls looking for a release. I would discourage 90% of the people who claim to be looking from doing so. Enlightenment cannot be found, worked for, understood, or categorised. There is far more of a dark side to the process than most people realise. It utterly destroys one's ability to function in society, and make rational decisions.Enlightenment causes destruction of ability to function for some but not all? Sounds reasonable. ;)

I think God provides for some respite even in the creatures on the baser side of the scale. I think God is particularly active with these organisms, and less so with us. The idea here is that God starts with the lowest levels of consciousness, and evolves them upwards and upwards until the consciousness levels are on par with God Himself, where he then ends the dream by merging that singular consciousness with Himself, and starts over. I think the suffering is somehow necessary to evolve consciousness. [/B]This is the greater good in bad, argument. I disagree but again it sounds reasonable.

Wow. Gotta switch mental gears here. It isn't often that I get to play with concepts like this with others. Well, here goes.

Which force of gravity? Newton's, Einstein's, quantum mechanics', string theory's? All these are mental constructions to explain that things fall.

Certainly, in the same way that one person's Jesus is very different from another person's, both are mental constructions to explain God.

I would say that no physical theory can approach reality in the same way that no spiritual train of belief can explain God. Or the opposite, if your thinking runs that way.

Yet if you are a cheerleader for unreasonableness why are you never unreasonable yourself? Indeed it seems you embrace reason like the rest of us:

Really, it's only because we live in a culture that demands it from people as a prerequisite to good discussion. I am perfectly capable of arguing from an unreasonable standpoint, with the language of myth and emotion, and state my case just as strongly. I don't believe in one or the other as 'right'.

Surely an unreasonable version would be "We don't need to do anything about god therefore we must do something and go to him".

No, an unreasonable version would appeal to the emotions as opposed to logic. What your version of unreasonableness is is reason turned back on itself. Interesting, but not what I'm getting at. They are two completely different modes of expression, not opposites. But you could think about it that way if you wish, who am I to decide what is unreason and what isn't?

Everything in your post is reasonable. I think it's arbitrary and not a particularly useful viewpoint, but reasonable nonetheless.

Naturally. I don't think religion is very useful at all, when it is done properly. I certainly haven't found any. And it is wholly arbitrary because every person's idea of God is different. It isn't God that is imperfect, it is us, from God's standpoint.

To think as though it does is powerful and well worth doing.

That would depend on what you are trying to accomplish. If your wish is to be powerful and in control, certainly a belief in the ontology of cause and effect would prove fruitful. But for many applications, the opposite can also be fruitful. The world can be a large and oppressing place, if you are in that state of mind, and divorcing your mind from reality for a while can be very useful for one's state of being. It is something I do from time to time. I do know people who default to the irrational state of mind, and, while they often seem to us to be rather stupid, I can't see anymore where one mode is better than the other.

As you know I consider constraints enablers of creativity. Artists constrain their pallettes as creative exercises, for example. The constraint of gravity enables us to breathe and walk.

A certain amount of constraint is necessary to provide relevance. As long as you have relevance however, the sky is open. You can choose how much relevance to include in your creations, and you necessarily limit your audience accordingly. Other people care, God does not.

You mean 'real' people in your local area or online people?

Had you asked this earlier, I might have been inclined to brag further. I prefer not to now. You can keep pestering me about it if you are terribly interested in the phenomena, however.

Enlightenment causes destruction of ability to function for some but not all? Sounds reasonable.

As the Buddhist saying goes, there are as many doors to enlightenment as there are people. They all make necessarily different impacts on the psyche. George Gurdjieff's enlightenment was very different from Rajneesh's enlightment, which was very different in turn from the Dalai Lama's enlightenment, and all of those are completely different from UG Krishnamurti's enlightenment.

In UG's, Rajneesh's, and arguably, the Dalai Lama's enlightenment, enlightenment has made impossible those individual's ability to function in society, forcing them to interact through mediums, getting their living expenses from the gratitudes of others. Gurdjieff is a notable exception in this case, as he was very capable of providing services to others in exchange for money, which he in turn used to finance his consciousness experiments.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Certainly, in the same way that one person's Jesus is very different from another person's, both are mental constructions to explain God.
If I was a twat I would smugly declare "and just like gravity and circles, God doesn't exist!"

I would say that no physical theory can approach reality in the same way that no spiritual train of belief can explain God. Or the opposite, if your thinking runs that way.
Supressing the inner smug-twat, I agree there is some analogy between scientific and "spiritual" pursuits and there are essential differences. "Spiritual" (I do try to write it without quotes but lack the will power) pursuits begin with the abstraction, picked up culturally during the formative years, and hunt for it in experience. Science, on the other hand, begins with experience and builds abstraction - often leading to culturally counter-sensical ideas.

In both there is some secondary feedback; experience informs culture and culture informs experience.

Really, it's only because we live in a culture that demands it from people as a prerequisite to good discussion. I am perfectly capable of arguing from an unreasonable standpoint, with the language of myth and emotion, and state my case just as strongly. I don't believe in one or the other as 'right'.What's unreasonable about the language of myth and emotion?

No, an unreasonable version would appeal to the emotions as opposed to logic.Both are mere tools to persuade another to one's position. That's simply an "art of rhetoric" issue. I exclusively and deliberately appealed to emotion when I went off on a one-man atheist "defender of reason" crusade into this forum (http://discussions.godandscience.org/). (okay, the site's down right now but it's the godandscience forums, my screename and avatar the same as here.)


hat your version of unreasonableness is is reason turned back on itself. Interesting, but not what I'm getting at. They are two completely different modes of expression, not opposites. But you could think about it that way if you wish, who am I to decide what is unreason and what isn't?*sigh*
This is like fencing a cloud of smoke. Defend your beliefs, man! This will get boring otherwise.

Naturally. I don't think religion is very useful at all, when it is done properly. I certainly haven't found any. And it is wholly arbitrary because every person's idea of God is different. It isn't God that is imperfect, it is us, from God's standpoint.That, or every believer's idea is bollocks. And please don't agree, or twist that into a positive. I mean bollocks as in superstitious fantastical crap that bears no relation to reality whatsoever. Things fall, things are round - I might say gravity and circles are mental constructs but they relate demonstrably to uniquitous percievable phenomenon. God is not in the same category.

That would depend on what you are trying to accomplish. If your wish is to be powerful and in control, certainly a belief in the ontology of cause and effect would prove fruitful. But for many applications, the opposite can also be fruitful. The world can be a large and oppressing place, if you are in that state of mind, and divorcing your mind from reality for a while can be very useful for one's state of being. It is something I do from time to time. I do know people who default to the irrational state of mind, and, while they often seem to us to be rather stupid, I can't see anymore where one mode is better than the other.Cause and effect knows its place, yes. So does probablistic thinking. That doesn't mean I have either in mind when shagging. So what?

A certain amount of constraint is necessary to provide relevance. As long as you have relevance however, the sky is open. You can choose how much relevance to include in your creations, and you necessarily limit your audience accordingly. Other people care, God does not.Constraints provide toe-holds in the infinite possibilities of vacuous freedom.

You can keep pestering me about it if you are terribly interested in the phenomena, however.No, that's ok.

As the Buddhist saying goes, there are as many doors to enlightenment as there are people. They all make necessarily different impacts on the psyche. George Gurdjieff's enlightenment was very different from Rajneesh's enlightment, which was very different in turn from the Dalai Lama's enlightenment, and all of those are completely different from UG Krishnamurti's enlightenment.

In UG's, Rajneesh's, and arguably, the Dalai Lama's enlightenment, enlightenment has made impossible those individual's ability to function in society, forcing them to interact through mediums, getting their living expenses from the gratitudes of others. Gurdjieff is a notable exception in this case, as he was very capable of providing services to others in exchange for money, which he in turn used to finance his consciousness experiments. Nice work if you can get it.

Right, Napster, let's have a bit of tooth and claw in your response please.

Right, Napster, let's have a bit of tooth and claw in your response please.

As you wish...

If I was a twat I would smugly declare "and just like gravity and circles, God doesn't exist!"

And promptly fly off the face of the earth.

Supressing the inner smug-twat, I agree there is some analogy between scientific and "spiritual" pursuits and there are essential differences. "Spiritual" (I do try to write it without quotes but lack the will power) pursuits begin with the abstraction, picked up culturally during the formative years, and hunt for it in experience. Science, on the other hand, begins with experience and builds abstraction - often leading to culturally counter-sensical ideas.

In both there is some secondary feedback; experience informs culture and culture informs experience.

Both are ways to know reality. Either studying it in minute detail, or by looking for grand arches that explain away everything. One way is good for some things, the other is good for what the first lacks. I used to think that science was the only and true way to deal with reality, but then I think back to the theocratic Ottoman Empire, and realize that it is possible to build a strong and viable society based around the religious way of knowing. Now I think that an appreciation for irrational elements of society would go a long way towards advancing modern western society.

*sigh*
This is like fencing a cloud of smoke. Defend your beliefs, man! This will get boring otherwise.

There is little there to defend, as far as beliefs go. I am setting forth my observations and my lack of beliefs, and then attempting to argue that a concept of God can be a 'right' way of looking at things, and that looking through the lens of God can bring you to truths that it takes science an awful amount of energy and debate in order to get there.

New technologies and paradigms are saying things and making judgements that spiritualists have known ever since the first man looked up at the sky and thought "God". Just like you were saying, they move in different directions. The first scientists were deeply religious men who were exploring the cosmos their God provided for them. Just as science is starting to get into the religion game, religion initially began the science game.

If it feels like you are fencing a cloud of smoke, it is certain that you are asking the wrong questions. We are not going to be able to explore irrationality unless you can at least make the attempt to open up to the idea. It's like my father bugging me about his computer. He doesn't really need to know computers any more than to browse the internet and check his email with. Lots of little concepts like a "computer desktop" trip him up. It takes his focus off the things that are really important. Do you understand the comparison?

Discussions, for me, are avenues for self-change. I look at each discussion as an opportunity to re-examine my mental constructs. To me, the above sentence which you complained about holds much meaning. To you, it looks like smoke. As is the nature of irrationality, it's meaning cannot be comprehended until we share a set of concepts to attack the problem with. In my opinion, for this discussion to go anywhere, you should be working hard to understand the lens I look out at the world with instead of looking for amusing differences. But, being that I began this in order to prove that one can hold a logical concept of God that is conclusive, it isn't terribly necessary.

God is not in the same category.

Perhaps I should reorient myself. I think that God has one and only one purpose, and that purpose is the most important one, one that we always come back to again and again in our travels. God tells you how to live. How to have everything in this world. I think that if you comprehend God, than you can have all your heart's desires. How to find your masculinity and your femininity and integrate them into a solid whole. I don't think that anything in the physical world can quite compare to the feeling of bliss you get when you are one with God.

That said, after you are one with God, you still have to go somewhere, provide for yourself, and deal with others. No union with God is perfect, so there is always something He wants you to learn. And when you learn it, He finds something else for you, to keep your mind occupied. One can never relax in the presence of God. I myself would never want to, for it would feel like death to me. Of course, your definition of relaxing and mine is necessarily very different. Having no need to struggle to provide food, shelter and clothing for myself would probably impress upon you as a relaxed lifestyle. For me, it would be just a different set of variables to deal with in forging ahead with life.

Cause and effect knows its place, yes. So does probablistic thinking. That doesn't mean I have either in mind when shagging. So what?

Well, I would attempt to unify the different modes of thought, and try to attempt different modes of thought during activities that normally require a certain one. My religion is playing with such thought, even given the extreme state of mind that comes from sexual union. I will say that most people are fairly afraid of deep sexual union, because they are afraid of the release of such intense emotion. It is said that orgasm is where man got his first glimpse of meditation. I would argue that meditation fails for people for the same reason sexual union fails to give most people their own taste of God. They are afraid.

Nice work if you can get it.

I wouldn't want it, and I doubt you would too. It might be fun for years, but I think you would get very bored of the sycophants, the endless talking, the demands of people to demonstrate your enlightenment, and the physical and emotional frailties. But, if fame is your thing...

I hope this response is more to your liking.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
And promptly fly off the face of the earth.You are confusing the perceivable fact that things fall - and stick to the ground once there - with explanatory theories. The latter, like circles, are in the mind.

Both are ways to know reality. Either studying it in minute detail, or by looking for grand arches that explain away everything. One way is good for some things, the other is good for what the first lacks. I used to think that science was the only and true way to deal with reality, but then I think back to the theocratic Ottoman Empire, and realize that it is possible to build a strong and viable society based around the religious way of knowing. Now I think that an appreciation for irrational elements of society would go a long way towards advancing modern western society.You do realise that you are the one who brought this science/god dichotomy into our conversation? I for one don't and never have thought science is the only way to know things. There is also discourse, art, poetry, recreational drug use, dreaming etc etc etc. Story making and myth telling are also valuable - invaluable for children's development - but it's taking such fantastical constructions seriously where I disagree with you.

There is little there to defend, as far as beliefs go. I am setting forth my observations and my lack of beliefs, and then attempting to argue that a concept of God can be a 'right' way of looking at things, and that looking through the lens of God can bring you to truths that it takes science an awful amount of energy and debate in order to get there.The old "scientists climb a mountain to find theists sat there all along" analogy. Those links between, say, quantum mechanics and Buddhism, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics to biblical creationism and on and on are tenuous at best and utter bull in the main. Thunder storms turned out not to be warring gods afterall, and the same goes for all other theistic explanations involving quasi-human super-entities flying around like stage hands. We live on Earth, not Middle Earth.

New technologies and paradigms are saying things and making judgements that spiritualists have known ever since the first man looked up at the sky and thought "God".No, spiritualists are making tenuous connections. Every thing is like some other thing, but these connections are so shallow as to be laughable.

Just like you were saying, they move in different directions. The first scientists were deeply religious men who were exploring the cosmos their God provided for them. Just as science is starting to get into the religion game, religion initially began the science game.You said above science takes more energy for the same results. You must wonder why they bothered.

If it feels like you are fencing a cloud of smoke, it is certain that you are asking the wrong questions. We are not going to be able to explore irrationality unless you can at least make the attempt to open up to the idea. It's like my father bugging me about his computer. He doesn't really need to know computers any more than to browse the internet and check his email with. Lots of little concepts like a "computer desktop" trip him up. It takes his focus off the things that are really important. Do you understand the comparison?

Discussions, for me, are avenues for self-change. I look at each discussion as an opportunity to re-examine my mental constructs. To me, the above sentence which you complained about holds much meaning. To you, it looks like smoke. As is the nature of irrationality, it's meaning cannot be comprehended until we share a set of concepts to attack the problem with. In my opinion, for this discussion to go anywhere, you should be working hard to understand the lens I look out at the world with instead of looking for amusing differences. But, being that I began this in order to prove that one can hold a logical concept of God that is conclusive, it isn't terribly necessary.A poetic plea. But this does not come down to a lack of mystical appreciation on my behalf, but a rather simple miscue on yours. To recap:

You expressed incredulity that gods are common cultural concepts. I offered an explanation. Unfortunately I used the word "reasonably" as an everyday amplifier where I might as easily have used "very" or some such. You jumped on this one word (my explanation stands unaddressed) and went off on a generic "irrationality rocks" ramble.

And that is what it comes down to. I address what you say, you reply with generic statements of new-agism. I'm reminded of the way theists reply with "the bible is a wonderous mystery that can engage a sharp mind" when I point out some dreary error such as "insects have four legs".

Hence the danger of me getting bored here. Feedback is important to maintain interest in a discussion.

Having no need to struggle to provide food, shelter and clothing for myself would probably impress upon you as a relaxed lifestyle. For me, it would be just a different set of variables to deal with in forging ahead with life.You realise you can sit around being philosophical about the fact that your material needs are met because your material needs are met, of course.

Well, I would attempt to unify the different modes of thought, and try to attempt different modes of thought during activities that normally require a certain one. My religion is playing with such thought, even given the extreme state of mind that comes from sexual union. I will say that most people are fairly afraid of deep sexual union, because they are afraid of the release of such intense emotion. It is said that orgasm is where man got his first glimpse of meditation. I would argue that meditation fails for people for the same reason sexual union fails to give most people their own taste of God. They are afraid.So I, as a denier of god, have never had really really great sex?

I wouldn't want it, and I doubt you would too. It might be fun for years, but I think you would get very bored of the sycophants, the endless talking, the demands of people to demonstrate your enlightenment, and the physical and emotional frailties. But, if fame is your thing... It would beat flipping burgers or, for that matter, any menial job the majority of the world's population does. Sitting on one's arse talking crap and getting respect for it is great. That's what I do as an academic (well, I will once qualified) and I can tell you it rocks cf any other job I've done.

You are confusing the perceivable fact that things fall - and stick to the ground once there - with explanatory theories. The latter, like circles, are in the mind.

Sure. And God also exists in the mind. Certainly one can deny His existance. I do so many times whenever I feel like it is helpful to a discussion. He doesn't care.

You do realise that you are the one who brought this science/god dichotomy into our conversation?

Sure. It is a classic dichotomy. It is worth exploring.

There is also discourse, art, poetry, recreational drug use, dreaming etc etc etc.

None of these things, with the exception of discourse, and only to a minor extent, is given serious consideration in modern society. Hence science's primacy in the "methods of knowing" debate. Art is really only considered as far as it is to create profit. Economics run our existance.

but it's taking such fantastical constructions seriously where I disagree with you.

You first say that they are invaluable, then claim to not take them seriously. Perhaps you meant literally? Because every spiritualist I know that isn't rooted in fundamentalism doesn't take them literally. Seriously, yes; myth and legend can speak volumes about human nature, but few believe that Icarus literally flew through the air so high the sun melted his wings, causing him to plummet to his death. The nature of such stories are such that, with the right amount and quality of suspension of disbelief, once can come to certain knowledges that one would have trouble comprehending otherwise. One plays with myth and legend and metaphysical philosophies and theories the same way a cook plays with food, flavor, and presentation. The consciousness is a palette as vast as the universe itself.

Those links between, say, quantum mechanics and Buddhism, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics to biblical creationism and on and on are tenuous at best and utter bull in the main.

You're missing the point. I am not claiming that science is worthless in finding out truth, nor that quantum mechanics makes particle physicists out of Buddhists. That was never my intention. I am saying that both methods are like overlaying different color transparencies over reality. Certain things are immediately apprehendable using the red lens of science, and others are best seen with the blue lens of spirituality. Studying the red image long enough will enable you to see things the blue lens puts in sharp relief. That is all.

Every thing is like some other thing, but these connections are so shallow as to be laughable.

Of course it would seem so to you, but spiritualists aren't aiming to convince scientists with such things, more than themselves. Going back to my lens analogy, the spiritualists are realizing some things by applying a purple lens. To you, who denies completely the blue lens of religion, a purple lens seems like utter bollicks, a mockery of science.

You said above science takes more energy for the same results. You must wonder why they bothered.

For the same reason scientists spend lots and lots of time and money proving that kids get bored in school. They are just adding to the total sum of knowledge of the human race. That science comes to the same conclusions as religion does about certain questions should not be seen as redundant.

And that is what it comes down to. I address what you say, you reply with generic statements of new-agism.

Sorry. I will try to do better.

You realise you can sit around being philosophical about the fact that your material needs are met because your material needs are met, of course.

Of course. But many a spiritualist has become spiritual after going through some hard times where their needs were not met. Science will do just as little as religion will when it comes to feeding the world's poor. For that, economics must evolve. Of course, this is a rather naive projection on my part, for all I know, new tech discovered tomorrow will render the question of suffering moot. Who really knows?

So I, as a denier of god, have never had really really great sex?

What is required to have a life changing moment through any type of meditation, including sex, is taking it seriously enough to, first off, believe that it can happen, and two, work hard enough to make it happen. A belief in God is not necessary.

It would beat flipping burgers or, for that matter, any menial job the majority of the world's population does. Sitting on one's arse talking crap and getting respect for it is great. That's what I do as an academic (well, I will once qualified) and I can tell you it rocks cf any other job I've done.

You are more than free to become a modern enlightened master if you wish. Enlightenment isn't necessary, all you need is an ability to fool people into believing you are, and the capability to keep it up for as long as you wish to play the role. Even the enlightened people have had to lie sometimes to keep up appearances. Like I said, no enlightenment is perfect. As for me, I would rather not.