Originally posted by NemesioUnsuprisingly, saying that 'God did it' is but a short step away.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to the non-theists, the delusion of God (gods, something) has plagued man the entirety of human history. Are you objecting to the thought of God as a plague or are you making an issue of the timeline of Scripture?
Well, if you refuse to acknowledge macro-evolution, then you will certainly refuse to ack e back of a man riding a mule being chased by a bear.
Nemesio[/b]
Perhaps I am surmising incorrectly, but it almost sounds as though you are claiming that evolution prompted man's search for a God... that doesn't exist.
You don't have to read five pages of any mythos to find a myth that spuriously claims to be a scientific explanation for something.
If by 'spuriously' you mean intentionally wrong, I disagree. I think that all myths sincerily intend to explain various aspects of the human existence using whatever level of sophistication is available at the time.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't think such a craving can reasonably be construed as a need, so I think you were notionally confused there.
First of all, I want some more clarification. When I asked you earlier to clarify exactly what you mean by the "need for God", I think you actually provided a couple of different (but maybe related) notions (page 5). Let's look at each in turn.
For one, you seemed to state the "need for God" is an aching "craving for" some agent, God. I don't think ...[text shortened]... g everyone's time. If not, what's the argument, exactly?
Well, of course I was "notionally confused!" I am a Christian, aren't I? Aren't we all--- in your book--- just a bunch of uncouth, ill-read nincumpoops who lack the intellectual acumen, capacity and honesty to objectively evaluate our belief system and subsequently articulate the same to even a remote degree of (your) satisfaction?
For reasons unknown, the crudeness of my initial expression so clouded the intent that even a genius of your magnitude couldn't slice through the haze to ascertain the salient point. (Note to self: take a serious look into the field of espionage... ) Since my cloaking device had so effectively blocked your grasp of the concept, you demanded a fleshing out of the meaning. I offered pithy illustrations including "a craving for God." You objected again to my imprecision. At dictionary.com. the following is offered as the first three definition for the word 'craving.'
1. to long for; want greatly; desire eagerly: to crave sweets; to crave affection.
2. to require; need: a problem craving prompt attention.
3. to ask earnestly for (something); beg for.
Apparently, even this fleshing out of the general concept elicits the 'gaping mouth accompanied by blank stare' response. Perhaps this will clear up the initial concept using words with which you are more comfortable.
Man has an historical noetic concept of the Numinous. Nothing within the physical world directly evidences the Numinous. Nonetheless, man has an equally-long historical record of repeated attribution of the physical world (in part or whole) to actions of the Numinous. Moreover, man has considered the Numinous as capable of personal relation with himself, and himself with the Numinous.
But since you yourself have now stated that this "need for God" is caused by the absence of God, it follows from this primary premise that God is absent.
When food is absent, does it cease to exist? Isn't its absence the cause of my hunger? Isn't its mere presence alone the source of my satisfaction, or does there exist some threshold which must be crossed in order to gain that satisfaction?
How many atheists are there? How many Buddhists are there that don't posit the existence of a divine agent?
How many atheists begin as such? How many Buddhists have an inherent belief in that thought system? You are attempting to characterize these other thought systems as though they are default positions, when you clearly know that such is not the case. All of these must be learned. Even our knowledge of a personal relationship with God is something that must be learned. What isn't learned, however, is that inherent concept of God, or the Numinous.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps I am surmising incorrectly, but it almost sounds as though you are claiming that evolution prompted man's search for a God... that doesn't exist.
Evolution prompted man's search for answers. Evolution also prompted
man's inclination to anthropomorphize (because of the development of
the awareness of self-awareness, and thus the empathizing with 'other-
awareness'😉. So, they anthropomorphized rain, sunshine, earthquakes,
and so forth.
If by 'spuriously' you mean intentionally wrong, I disagree. I think that all myths sincerily intend to explain various aspects of the human existence using whatever level of sophistication is available at the time.
I've never heard spurious to mean 'intentionally wrong;' I have always
taken it to mean something like 'plausible but false,' or 'erroneously
purported.' Of course, myths strived to sincerely explain various aspects
of human existence and the world around us. This is because we are a
biologically curious species. And, as we do become more sophisticated,
the 'explanations' offered by mythos fall by the wayside.
And so, as humans, we continue to 'need' answers. Some of us are satisfied
with the aetiological explanations offered by our propinquity group's mythos.
Some strive to find them outside of that. The need is satisfied (or not)
by the mythos, ideologies, philosophies, metaphysical frameworks, or
whatever. Some of these things require a Supreme Being, some don't.
Here's a question for you, FreakyKBH: Do you think that there is a higher
proportion of theists (relative to atheists) today or 1000 years ago?
Why do you think so?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioEvolution prompted man's search for answers.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps I am surmising incorrectly, but it almost sounds as though you are claiming that evolution prompted man's search for a God... that doesn't exist.
Evolution prompted man's search for answers. Evolution also prompted
man's inclination to anthropomorphize (because of the development of
the awareness of se ...[text shortened]... ive to atheists) today or 1000 years ago?
Why do you think so?
Nemesio[/b]
In search of an answer that does not exist, is the rest of the thought. Extrapolated out, evolution is blind and dumb, without a thought toward eventual outcomes, without a reference point for success. In short, a meaningless exercise resulting in no value, whatsoever.
And yet out of the evolutionary process, we derive such abstract concepts as fair, just, love, beauty, right, wrong and etc. You see the obvious contradiction this creates.
And, as we do become more sophisticated, the 'explanations' offered by mythos fall by the wayside.
Thank God the Jews are around to disabuse us of the idea that God's action in time was just another archetypical method of evolution to help (temporarily) explain man's interconnectedness to the meaningless cosmos.
... offered by our propinquity group's mythos.
Even if I could afford a word like that, I will never possess the linguistic dexterity to apply it. Well done, sir.
Do you think that there is a higher proportion of theists (relative to atheists) today or 1000 years ago? Why do you think so?
In developed nations, I'm of the impression that there are more today in number, but I'm not certain about the proportion. Assuming the proportion has increased, I would give the reasons as two-fold. First, I think that most children raised in environments which acknowledged the presence of a relational God were equally exposed to hypocrisy and intellectual quarantines.
Second, I think that institutions and/or societies of higher learning (regardless of affiliation) have a historical record of employing peer pressure and shame in enforcement of their demand for herd-like compliance. This can be seen beginning in the Enlightment period through to present day. Open and honest inquiry is never truly honored by those in power. What a stark contrast to our Lord Jesus Christ:
Ask, seek, knock.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In search of an answer that does not exist, is the rest of the thought.
Consider this: the number 'pi' is irrational. That is, it comprises a never-ending series of random
digits. Consequently, the answer to the question 'What is the last digit of pi?' doesn't exist.
However, this doesn't stop mathematicians -- very, very smart people! -- from trying to answer
it.
Consider: It is physically impossible to go faster than the speed of light. However, there are
scientists -- very, very smart people! -- trying to do just that.
So, it's clear that people are willing to try to pursue that unpursuable, or answer questions
which have no answer.
Extrapolated out, evolution is blind and dumb, without a thought toward eventual outcomes, without a reference point for success. In short, a meaningless exercise resulting in no value, whatsoever.
Huh? I don't even know what you're trying to say. Is it relevant to the discussion, because if
it isn't I am probably not interested.
And yet out of the evolutionary process, we derive such abstract concepts as fair, just, love, beauty, right, wrong and etc. You see the obvious contradiction this creates.
No contradiction at all! Fairness, justice, beauty, love, and right/wrong are all very useful
products of evolution to make us more effective survivors.
Thank God the Jews are around to disabuse us of the idea that God's action in time was just another archetypical method of evolution to help (temporarily) explain man's interconnectedness to the meaningless cosmos.
Ad hominem. Ignored.
Even if I could afford a word like that, I will never possess the linguistic dexterity to apply it. Well done, sir.
Ditto.
In developed nations, I'm of the impression that there are more today in number, but I'm not certain about the proportion. Assuming the proportion has increased, I would give the reasons as two-fold.
I'm guessing you mean that you think the proprotion of atheists has increased...
First, I think that most children raised in environments which acknowledged the presence of a relational God were equally exposed to hypocrisy and intellectual quarantines.
Do you think that children raised in environments which didn't acknowledge or denied the
presence of a relational God were less exposed to hypocrisy and intellectual quarantines?
Do you think that children raised 1000 years ago were less exposed to hypocrisy and intellectual
quarantines?
Second, I think that institutions and/or societies of higher learning (regardless of affiliation) have a historical record of employing peer pressure and shame in enforcement of their demand for herd-like compliance.
Do you think that the monestaries/convents of old didn't? Do you think that the various social
constructs from 1000 years ago (be it the Church, the tavern, the old trade unions, &c) employed
less peer pressure and shame in their demand for herd-like compliance?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSo, it's clear that people are willing to try to pursue that unpursuable, or answer questions which have no answer.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In search of an answer that does not exist, is the rest of the thought.
Consider this: the number 'pi' is irrational. That is, it comprises a never-ending series of random
digits. Consequently, the answer to the question 'What is the last digit of pi?' doesn't exist.
However, this doesn't stop mathematician ...[text shortened]... ss peer pressure and shame in their demand for herd-like compliance?
Nemesio[/b]
For those that are trying to find the end of pi, do you think they are doing so for no purpose, or instead, to realize its purpose?
Is it relevant to the discussion, because if it isn't I am probably not interested.
Very relevant, indeed. A lack of God means that only that which we can measure in the physical world is real. That also means there is no reason for anything, it just is. There can be no success, as that would imply a standard. Life, or no life are equated.
No contradiction at all! Fairness, justice, beauty, love, and right/wrong are all very useful products of evolution to make us more effective survivors.
Products or abstract concepts? Which ever, upon what are they based? Toward what end do they lead?
Ad hominem. Ignored.
The Jews stand as a testament of a personal God's action in time with man. Where's the attack in that, pray tell?
Do you think that children raised in environments which didn't acknowledge or denied the presence of a relational God were less exposed to hypocrisy and intellectual quarantines?
No. Any system of thought not based upon truth will necessarily involve hypocricy, owing to its resistance to truth for its own survival.
Do you think that children raised 1000 years ago were less exposed to hypocrisy and intellectual quarantines?
No. I think it is rampant in every age. I do think there is more frustration with the current level of information, in that with as much as we know, there ought not to be such emphatic divisions between various fields of thought... lines drawn in the sand, so to speak.
Do you think that the monestaries/convents of old didn't? Do you think that the various social constructs from 1000 years ago (be it the Church, the tavern, the old trade unions, &c) employed less peer pressure and shame in their demand for herd-like compliance?
No, that is why I purposely worded it in the manner quoted. Anyone in power wants to stay in power, by hook or by crook. All have been guilty of abuse, save One.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI did. You rejected it. You rejected it with 'Oh Gee, I guess the Jews
No one yet.
suffered for nothing,' and your rejection of Evolution. Since I'm not
inclined to debate Evolution (again) and since I'm not interested in
your egocentric view of God, I simply am agreeing to disagree with your
position on this issue.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioInstead of naming needs, you equated this need described with other needs already meeting their satisfaction for as long as man has been on the planet.
I did. You rejected it. You rejected it with 'Oh Gee, I guess the Jews
suffered for nothing,' and your rejection of Evolution. Since I'm not
inclined to debate Evolution (again) and since I'm not interested in
your egocentric view of God, I simply am agreeing to disagree with your
position on this issue.
Nemesio
Man has always had relationships, always been involved in projects, always sought understanding of his environs. While all of those issues of life have been in constant flux and are continuing to find their real satisfactions, man has also always had this awareness of God.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou see? I said that what you are calling 'Man's awareness with God' is actually a more primal
Instead of naming needs, you equated this need described with other needs already meeting their satisfaction for as long as man has been on the planet.
Man has always had relationships, always been involved in projects, always sought understanding of his environs. While all of those issues of life have been in constant flux and are continuing to find their real satisfactions, man has also always had this awareness of God.
need: a need to have answers. You've not actually countered this claim, you've just dismissed it.
I've tried to explain the biological origins for interpretation of this claim, and, again, you've just
dismissed it.
You don't want a conversation unless it's with the given that C.S. Lewis' claim is itself true. Since
I think it's faulty, I address that. I'm not interested in a conversation that goes, 'Given that
C.S. Lewis is right, therefore God exists,' because I think C.S. Lewis is wrong.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioUsing strictly your thinking now, you claim that man doesn't have a need for God per se as much as a need for answers, and that further what man calls God has simply been one of those manifestations of his search.
You see? I said that what you are calling 'Man's awareness with God' is actually a more primal
need: a need to have answers. You've not actually countered this claim, you've just dismissed it.
I've tried to explain the biological origins for interpretation of this claim, and, again, you've just
dismissed it.
You don't want a conversation unless it' ...[text shortened]... s is right, therefore God exists,' because I think C.S. Lewis is wrong.
Nemesio
Do I have that right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis would not be representative of my opinion, but if it serves to debunk the idea that the primal
May I go further and declare for you that--- while serviceable and universally accessible--- the manifestation called God is akin to the image cast on smoke, ala the Wizard of Oz?
need that humans have is the one for 'answers' rather than the one for 'God,' you can run with it.
Nemesio