Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Though I disagree with Shaker and Rhiannon.on this because it is another thesis built the idea that religion is in some form external from humanity.

I'm not going to speak for Rhi because I don't speak for others; I can only speak for myself. I don't think we're as far apart on this issue as you may think, NS. I don't believe that religious belief is somehow external to humanity; I believe that is absolutely, entirely, inescapably and intrinsically internal to humanity - but that said, the contents of religious beliefs (in theistic terms, gods) are believed to be external to humanity. I have no belief any any gods and so regard belief in such thing as internal to certain human brains, belonging to them and them alone; however it appears to be the case that such believers not only believe (for themselves) but want others to believe that their gods are somehow external and objective facts.

I don't mean to say that I think that god-believers consider their gods to be objective, physical states of affairs to be found as physical objects in the cosmos as are the planet Jupiter and the M42 galaxy. That would be ridiculous. Almost nobody, anywhere thinks of their God in such concrete, physical terms anymore (with the possible exception of Mormons). I mean to say that, based on what I have read and seen of a great many various theists talking about their gods over very many years, they like to see their own interpretation of a god as a brute fact, a concrete thing whose wishes, wills, desires and aversions are - mark you well; this is the important bit - binding upon all others including those who do not believe in that entity in any way whatsoever.

[Shaker]

Sorry to elbow in here, there

No no no no no, don't be apologising, your elbow is no more or less important than anybody else's!

but I think the religious community has more people in that category than elsewhere. That is not to deny that there are others with their heads in the sand; but it only takes a small cadre to effect change and set the example.

I would be surprised in the extreme that the religious community has more people of that mind than elsewhere, given the forces that range against it; but am always open to evidence otherwise.

[BashfulAnthony]

Though I disagree with Shaker and Rhiannon.on this because it is another thesis built the idea that religion is in some form external from humanity.

I'm not going to speak for Rhi because I don't speak for others; I can only speak for myself. I don't think we're as far apart on this issue as you may think, NS. I don't believe that religious belief is somehow external to humanity; I believe that is absolutely, entirely, inescapably and intrinsically internal to humanity - but that said, the contents of religious beliefs (in theistic terms, gods) are believed to be external to humanity. I have no belief any any gods and so regard belief in such thing as internal to certain human brains, belonging to them and them alone; however it appears to be the case that such believers not only believe (for themselves) but want others to believe that their gods are somehow external and objective facts.

I don't mean to say that I think that god-believers consider their gods to be objective, physical states of affairs to be found as physical objects in the cosmos as are the planet Jupiter and the M42 galaxy. That would be ridiculous. Almost nobody, anywhere thinks of their God in such concrete, physical terms anymore (with the possible exception of Mormons). I mean to say that, based on what I have read and seen of a great many various theists talking about their gods over very many years, they like to see their own interpretation of a god as a brute fact, a concrete thing whose wishes, wills, desires and aversions are - mark you well; this is the important bit - binding upon all others including those who do not believe in that entity in any way whatsoever.

Again, sorry to butt in, but that is so wide of the mark.. I think it probably correct to suggest that I have a good deal mote experience of inter-acting with Christians, and what you say is alien to that experience.  Certainly there are those who believe like that, but they are heard because they are loud-mouthed, not representative of the huge majority. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Amen brother, seems to me that the ones who knock religion are missing a trick, us Bible thumpers have all the organisation in place, if we could all work together with one goal, now that's a dream worth pursuing.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't disagree, Shaker, that there are those who see their religion as an external truth, I just don't  think that it is percentage wise any different to the non religious, most of whom follow a moral realism as indicated by Dryghton's Toe in the OM thread. Also I think that even in seeing the idea of their religion as external, most just impose their chosen morality upon it.

I think we underestimate quite how much we all appeal to the idea that we think others should be bound by our ideas. To take a non theist example, it is clear in Sam Harris's writing and I think he is far from unique. As covered times before, the is/ought gap is observed more in the 'non breach' than the observance

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Amen brother, seems to me that the ones who knock religion are missing a trick, us Bible thumpers have all the organisation in place, if we could all work together with one goal, now that's a dream worth pursuing.

Gonnagle.

The organisation though becomes part of the issue. Organisations become interested in their power and exclusion. The point , I would say, is to see the organization's as merely there to facilitate the internal works for believers.

[Nearly Sane]

Anyway, night night, Mary Ellen, enjoyed the posting tonight

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

As per I am not to good at putting my point across, anyway tomorrow is another day, gudnight Johnboy.

Gonnagle.

[Alan Burns]

But it hasn't worked, has it? I can't speak for Hinduism, but the damage done by the monotheistic faiths in the belief God gave humanity 'dominion' over creation is astronomical.

It seems to me that our best hope lies now in those who bend their knee before nature in wonder, and who remember how small and insignificant we are as a consequence. The earth would be much better off without us; if we are going to keep our place here then we'd better get some perspective, stop thinking we are at the top of the tree and figure out how to treat the natural world with respect.

So exactly who or what would perceive that this world would be a better place without us?  I see no evidence of anything which can perceive the state of this world apart from human beings and God.

[Shaker]

So exactly who or what would perceive that this world would be a better place without us?

Human beings. Or rather, some of them, anyway.

I see no evidence of anything which can perceive the state of this world apart from human beings and God.

There we go. FIFY.

[Alan Burns]

So exactly who or what would perceive that this world would be a better place without us?

Human beings. Or rather, some of them, anyway.

But without us (ie human beings) what would be the point of having a better place if no one or nothing perceived it?

[Shaker]

But without us (ie human beings) what would be the point of having a better place if no one or nothing perceived it?

Humans are not the be-all and end-all of perception, Alan. Other sentient beings exist who are subjects-of-a-life (to use the technical lingo) and who have preferences about states of affairs. The idea of X-without anyone-or-anything-to-perceive-it-as-X is, to me, self-evident and self-refuting nonsense; states of affairs (good/bad/neutral) can only be decided by sentient subjects who can form a judgement about such things. These need not be humans alone, mind.

[Alan Burns]

But without us (ie human beings) what would be the point of having a better place if no one or nothing perceived it?

Humans are not the be-all and end-all of perception, Alan. Other sentient beings exist who are subjects-of-a-life (to use the technical lingo) and who have preferences about states of affairs. The idea of X-without anyone-or-anything-to-perceive-it-as-X is, to me, self-evident and self-refuting nonsense; states of affairs (good/bad/neutral) can only be decided by sentient subjects who can form a judgement about such things. These need not be humans alone, mind.

So can you identify which sentient beings would perceive this world to be a better place without humans?

[Shaker]

So can you identify which sentient beings would perceive this world to be a better place without humans?

Yes - all of them.

On its face that of course seems like a slick, facile, glib, superficial sort of answer, but let's go a bit deeper than that. To be sentient is to be self-conscious at least to some extent, to be aware, to be be sensible of states of affairs which are pleasurable or painful. Nothing very remarkable about this - that's what sentient means. So if we accept that human beings cause the most of the suffering to other sentient creatures in the world, which I don't think any reasonably aware and morally serious person can deny, then it follows that all the other sentient species would perceive this world to be a better place without the suffering inflicted upon them by human beings if said humans beings were not there. 

[BashfulAnthony]

So can you identify which sentient beings would perceive this world to be a better place without humans?

Yes - all of them.

On its face that of course seems like a slick, facile, glib, superficial sort of answer, but let's go a bit deeper than that. To be sentient is to be self-conscious at least to some extent, to be aware, to be be sensible of states of affairs which are pleasurable or painful. Nothing very remarkable about this - that's what sentient means. So if we accept that human beings cause the most of the suffering to other sentient creatures in the world, which I don't think any reasonably aware and morally serious person can deny, then it follows that all the other sentient species would perceive this world to be a better place without the suffering inflicted upon them by human beings if said humans beings were not there.

Good grief:  did nobody ever tell you to be concise!     

[Shaker]

"I strive to be brief, and become obscure." - Horace

[BashfulAnthony]

"I strive to be brief, and become obscure." - Horace

"Brevity is the soul of wit."   -  Shakespeare.

Or: 
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what other men say in whole books."  -  Nietzsche.

By the way:  if you allow me, I can take any of your "long" posts and have them fixed in about two days!   

[Leonard James]

Good grief:  did nobody ever tell you to be concise!     

That would mean leaving out explanatory details which would then be asked for, so the brevity would be illusory ... it would just lead to a greater number of smaller posts.

But to be concise, I think what Shakes is saying is that humans have learnt so many ways to protect themselves, that they do more harm to the environment and other species than any other life form.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,

You got an applause from Torridon and a agreement from Shaker but to win me over I will need some more, and please remember that this request comes from a follower of Christ, a religion that teaches greed is a sin.

Gonnagle.

I'm not sure what it is that you think I'm trying to win you over to, but the idea that the natural world is there to be exploited by those who have 'dominion' over it as granted to them by God is a Judeo-Christian concept. It may or may not exist in other faiths, but the Industrial Revolution was carried out by good Christian folks and created a mindset that now dominates the world regardless of faith - only now it's called 'growth' and not greed.

And whilst we're on that subject, your faith has also given us Prosperity Theology, popular with industrialists and others who see it as God's gift to them to exploit both their own country's environment and that of others. Who cares if rivers get polluted and animals go extinct, the fact they're coining it means they have God's blessing, right? And where is Prosperity Theology the most popular? One of the world's biggest hitters, the USA. So no, I'm not looking to Christianity for answers anytime soon.

[torridon]

Dear Rhiannon,

You got an applause from Torridon and a agreement from Shaker but to win me over I will need some more, and please remember that this request comes from a follower of Christ, a religion that teaches greed is a sin.

Gonnagle.

Maybe it is simplistic to say it is merely greed, perhaps it would be truer to observe that other species' loss is at our success and our hitherto indifference to the rest of the animal kingdom. Not all religions have had this indifference - many pagans, animists, some strands of the Eastern religions for instance have shown a deep instinctive respect for other life forms. But the worlds dominant religions derive from cultures that saw other animals purely in terms of their utility to humans, how good they are to eat or what service they could provide for us.  To this day, virtually the whole of christendom interprets the injunction 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' purely in human terms, as if other animals are simply not worthy of consideration, and pretty much all christian scripture deals with mans relationships with other men and god; mans relationship with nature scarcely gets a mention.

[Sriram]

Dear Rhiannon,

You got an applause from Torridon and a agreement from Shaker but to win me over I will need some more, and please remember that this request comes from a follower of Christ, a religion that teaches greed is a sin.

Gonnagle.

I'm not sure what it is that you think I'm trying to win you over to, but the idea that the natural world is there to be exploited by those who have 'dominion' over it as granted to them by God is a Judeo-Christian concept. It may or may not exist in other faiths, but the Industrial Revolution was carried out by good Christian folks and created a mindset that now dominates the world regardless of faith - only now it's called 'growth' and not greed.

And whilst we're on that subject, your faith has also given us Prosperity Theology, popular with industrialists and others who see it as God's gift to them to exploit both their own country's environment and that of others. Who cares if rivers get polluted and animals go extinct, the fact they're coining it means they have God's blessing, right? And where is Prosperity Theology the most popular? One of the world's biggest hitters, the USA. So no, I'm not looking to Christianity for answers anytime soon.

Yes....but not so much the devout Christians as the scientists and engineers who while criticizing Christianity, willy-nilly adopted the same mindset (till very recently perhaps).  An attitude of Man VS Nature.  It is this attitude that has resulted in disruption of the eco system.

[Leonard James]

I'm not sure what it is that you think I'm trying to win you over to, but the idea that the natural world is there to be exploited by those who have 'dominion' over it as granted to them by God is a Judeo-Christian concept. It may or may not exist in other faiths, but the Industrial Revolution was carried out by good Christian folks and created a mindset that now dominates the world regardless of faith - only now it's called 'growth' and not greed.

And whilst we're on that subject, your faith has also given us Prosperity Theology, popular with industrialists and others who see it as God's gift to them to exploit both their own country's environment and that of others. Who cares if rivers get polluted and animals go extinct, the fact they're coining it means they have God's blessing, right? And where is Prosperity Theology the most popular? One of the world's biggest hitters, the USA. So no, I'm not looking to Christianity for answers anytime soon.

Correct! The future is in our own hands and protecting the environment is our number one priority ... otherwise we have no future.

[Rhiannon]

But it hasn't worked, has it? I can't speak for Hinduism, but the damage done by the monotheistic faiths in the belief God gave humanity 'dominion' over creation is astronomical.

It seems to me that our best hope lies now in those who bend their knee before nature in wonder, and who remember how small and insignificant we are as a consequence. The earth would be much better off without us; if we are going to keep our place here then we'd better get some perspective, stop thinking we are at the top of the tree and figure out how to treat the natural world with respect.

So exactly who or what would perceive that this world would be a better place without us?  I see no evidence of anything which can perceive the state of this world apart from human beings and God.

What difference does it make whether the rest of creation is sentient or not? The rain forests can expand again, the rivers run clear again, the air will sparkle. Sea birds will live free of oil and plastic, land birds will have adequate food and can soar in safety from the huntsman's gun. The big cats, elephants and rhinos, too, will no longer fall victim to man's greed and foolish superstition. Worms will dig down into rich, dark earth and bees dance above unsprayed, unmodified flowers. The oak will never feel the chainsaw. The earth will never be shattered by dynamite.

A veritable garden of Eden, wouldn't you say? 'And God saw that it was good.'

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,

You got an applause from Torridon and a agreement from Shaker but to win me over I will need some more, and please remember that this request comes from a follower of Christ, a religion that teaches greed is a sin.

Gonnagle.

I'm not sure what it is that you think I'm trying to win you over to, but the idea that the natural world is there to be exploited by those who have 'dominion' over it as granted to them by God is a Judeo-Christian concept. It may or may not exist in other faiths, but the Industrial Revolution was carried out by good Christian folks and created a mindset that now dominates the world regardless of faith - only now it's called 'growth' and not greed.

And whilst we're on that subject, your faith has also given us Prosperity Theology, popular with industrialists and others who see it as God's gift to them to exploit both their own country's environment and that of others. Who cares if rivers get polluted and animals go extinct, the fact they're coining it means they have God's blessing, right? And where is Prosperity Theology the most popular? One of the world's biggest hitters, the USA. So no, I'm not looking to Christianity for answers anytime soon.

Yes....but not so much the devout Christians as the scientists and engineers who while criticizing Christianity, willy-nilly adopted the same mindset (till very recently perhaps).  An attitude of Man VS Nature.  It is this attitude that has resulted in disruption of the eco system.

I think the culturally in the West the Judeo-Christian mindset was the one which science inherited - we make nature bend to our will. I think this is exemplified in GM crops - if they feed more people then they are regarded as a good thing regardless of the impact they may have on the environment. In fact the same could be said of many modern farming methods, let alone energy production. The tide is turning, yes, but is it in time?

[Alan Burns]

What difference does it make whether the rest of creation is sentient or not? The rain forests can expand again, the rivers run clear again, the air will sparkle. Sea birds will live free of oil and plastic, land birds will have adequate food and can soar in safety from the huntsman's gun. The big cats, elephants and rhinos, too, will no longer fall victim to man's greed and foolish superstition. Worms will dig down into rich, dark earth and bees dance above unsprayed, unmodified flowers. The oak will never feel the chainsaw. The earth will never be shattered by dynamite.

A veritable garden of Eden, wouldn't you say? 'And God saw that it was good.'

But if no other creature on this earth is able to perceive the beauty of this  Garden of Eden, it's existence is totally pointless.   The creatures and vegetation merely survive, but there is no-one to appreciate it.