Agnotology

[L.A.]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Sriram]

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.
 

[Stranger]

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?

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Sriram]

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

[Stranger]

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...

[torridon]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Sriram]

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. 

[ippy]

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

[Stranger]

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 Knave]

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.

[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.

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. 

[ekim]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.   

[Sriram]

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.   

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Sriram]

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.  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.

[torridon]

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.

[ekim]

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.

[Udayana]

hmm .. but there is a strong whiff of people being "talked down" to, and of elite groups maintaining power and control.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Sriram]

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.