Philosophy Discussion Forums

Spectrum:

I wonder why you cannot see my point.
It is not efficient when you try to generalize and conflate things that can be specifically identified.

I see your point, but I don't fully agree with you.

As I had stated ALL humans has the potential to commit a wide range of evil and some are unfortunately born with an active evil tendency. Those born with an inherent active evil tendency [evil prone] will commit evils when triggered by a wide range of evil laden stimuli.

I don't think that anyone is born with an "active evil tendency" (whatever that is). I don't feel qualified to say specifically why people commit evil acts, but I think that what we are exposed to and our psychosocial development plays a huge part in the type of people we become.

One of the stimulus are those immutable evil laden elements contained in some religions are stimuli that triggered their evil prone theists to commit evil acts in the name of God in the belief it is their divine duty to do "good" to gain merits from God.

I have agreed with you that religion can be a cause of evil. I'm not debating that.

As I had stated these religious triggered evils are very significant at present thus humanity must strive to prevent, reduced or get rid of it.

I don't think that dissolving religion is necessarily the right idea. Evil is insidious, as such I don't think that it would simply disappear or lessen if we remove religion. One of the vehicles used to perpetrate evil would be gone, but evil would still exist – it doesn't necessarily follow that it would reduce. There may not be a God, but religion also does good and is beneficial for many people. I don't see a future without religion being a less evil one.

Of course, because humans has the potential for evils in general, getting rid of the religious stimuli will not eliminate all evil, humans will continue to commit other type of non-religious evils.
Elsewhere I have mentioned, besides dealing with the evil laden elements, humanity must also addressed those with evil tendencies, i.e. de-activate or modulate such tendencies from the neuro-psychological or psychiatric perspectives. Given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge I am optimistic this can be done in the far future after we have defanged theism.

Committing evil acts may be part of the nature of the human spirit or the human condition, as such, I don't think that the elimination of evil is a possibility. Your logic is seemingly "if we get rid of religion we get rid of religious evil", but you cannot eliminate the human propensity to look for something greater than ourselves, to look for spiritual resolution, or "God". Due to human nature, I think that the door to God will always be open. People don't have "on and off" switches to deep aspects of our psyche and conditioning raises moral questions such as freedom of choice.

Your excuse seem to like this;
Since humans has the potential to suffer all sorts of diseases, curing cancer is useless because a person who is cured of cancer may suffer other critical or common disease.

Not at all. You may be misinterpreting me. For me, religion is not analogous to cancer in all circumstances. In some it is, but I don't think that dissolving religion would solve the problem of evil or reduce evil acts. Religion in cases of terror is the vehicle for hate. If you take away the vehicle, the hate and will to commit acts of terror still remains. Your reasoning seems to hold that without religion people will somehow become "angels".

As for my critique of religions especially Islam, my focus [not my feelings] is very strong in relation to the degree of evils that Islam has committed on humanity since the past, the present and is a serious threat in the future. This is very objective as the evils are very objective based on empirical evidence.

Unless it is a part your job, why would you focus on something that you don't have feelings about? I don't think you're being objective, but as you say you are I'm not going to argue with you about it.

My thesis is religious-based terrors, violence and evils are due to the following critical root causes;
1. Theists who are unfortunately born [so not their fault] with an evil tendencies.
2. Immutable evil laden element 'commanded' by God in the holy texts

I don't agree with your first point, but I agree with your second point insomuch as it is a cause, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a root cause.

I see you have lack expertise in Problem Solving techniques where the critical approaches are 
1. to break down the problem down to its smallest parts, 
2. trace the root causes and 
3. review each specific problem in the wider whole view.

Why, because I don't see things the way you do? That assessment is a strawman bro, feel free to beat it up .

Greta wrote:As with everything, theology evolves in its own way. The ancients recorded what they saw, no doubt with some exaggeration to add traction (like today's scribes). Since they lacked scientific language, metaphor was the only referential tool, and simplified further with metonymy and synecdoches. I suppose it was inevitable that at some point their words were always going to be taken literally, not to mention being regularly doctored prior to the Gutenberg Press.

The fact that ancient myths took the form of literary narratives doesn't mean they were not intended to represent reality. The Christian gospels were written around 2000 years ago and what they depicted was not to be taken allegorically. There is a phrase in one of them saying: "these things are said so that you believe". Dante and Michaelangelo were not getting carried away with artistic licenses, they were portraying the realities of institutionalized theology, like the hierarchy of angels dwelling in heaven, according to the Summa Theologiae. And centuries before Gutenberg, there were bishops councils settling theological matters about what had to be believed as fact. You could face torture and death for not taking these "truths" literally. So no, I don't buy this theory of theist narratives being purely allegorical.

Greta wrote: Increasingly it seems to me that more believers today are seeing literalism as naive and actually trying to understand what the ancients were trying to get across rather than mindlessly following instructions like biological golems in the idiot fringes of religion.

I think it's the result of traditional beliefs losing ground to secularization and the social progress that came along with technical advances, made possible by science. "The rise of the historical level" as Ortega y Gasset used to say. The crisis in religion started more or less at the same time that science and secularism were gaining prestige, so it was religion that was forced to adjust its doctrinary base to accommodate the new views of the world. Saying that the old doctrines are not to be taken literally is part of that survival strategy. Religion, with its procession of superstitious beliefs, is trying to make a comeback. It has found a niche to regroup in the failure of capitalism to fulfill its promise of human flourishing. It really screwed up in the "spiritual" dimension of life.

Greta wrote: I just don't think we have enough information. It would really help if we could understand most of reality, ie. dark matter and energy, not to mention better understanding what matter and energy actually are.

Give it another few thousand years and the boffins will have a much better idea of what's going on unless they open up yet more seemingly endless rabbit holes.

I disagree with that. I'm sure there is a lot that we don't know. We are far from reaching absolute knowledge and probably never will, but no reason to dismiss the stack of what we do know. The religious troop will always play the ad ignorantiam card, pretending that nothing can really be asserted about the world because, you know, a little naughty devil could be moving the strings behind everything. And you have to believe this being exists because science can't look in every corner of the universe. But the truth is that such entities were proposed in the past and were discredited by science and reason. By the Occam's Razor principle, the new entities proposed can be summarily disregarded: whatever is beyond our current scope of knowledge, it's not a conscious and wilful thing.

Greta wrote: The way I'm seeing it, a fair few people have experiences that they interpret as communication with God, and then they need to work backwards in trying to posit what God is. Science works bottom-up, theology works top-down, and there's a whoppin' bloody great gap in between.

The way I'm seeing it, people are being (and have been) socially conditioned by the ideological apparatus of the constituted powers to believe in supernatural entities. That's the business of theologians, clerics and preachers of all kinds, who submit their interpretations for the consumption of the common man. People apply those beliefs to their personal and collective experiences and may come up with their own interpretations, but very unlikely they'll be completely original. They'll reproduce what their cultural environment has already given them. For the common man, science is still top-down discourse, coming from a socialized institution with power hierarchies and so on. Foucault was not wrong about that. But there's a difference with other discourses, which protects science from pure ideology. It is in the nature of its discourse, its methods and practices. It doesn't give you only the result of the inquiries, but how to get there.

Count Lucanor wrote:

Greta wrote:As with everything, theology evolves in its own way. The ancients recorded what they saw, no doubt with some exaggeration to add traction (like today's scribes). Since they lacked scientific language, metaphor was the only referential tool, and simplified further with metonymy and synecdoches. I suppose it was inevitable that at some point their words were always going to be taken literally, not to mention being regularly doctored prior to the Gutenberg Press.

The fact that ancient myths took the form of literary narratives doesn't mean they were not intended to represent reality. The Christian gospels were written around 2000 years ago and what they depicted was not to be taken allegorically. There is a phrase in one of them saying: "these things are said so that you believe". Dante and Michaelangelo were not getting carried away with artistic licenses, they were portraying the realities of institutionalized theology, like the hierarchy of angels dwelling in heaven, according to the Summa Theologiae. And centuries before Gutenberg, there were bishops councils settling theological matters about what had to be believed as fact. You could face torture and death for not taking these "truths" literally. So no, I don't buy this theory of theist narratives being purely allegorical.

Religion is necessarily a social institution and thus is hierarchic and power-based. When you think about it, it is an odd thing for people who either have had or hope to have very personal spiritual experiences to come together and thus shift the emphasis from personal growth to social connection, which is basically what humans routinely do to any of the arts.

My suspicion is that spirituality is an artistic and creative act, and religions would ideally be thought of as artistic institutions, with the human intellect and and emotions the "canvas". Spirituality is a kind of "life hack" - humans do have this intrinsic capability to have extraordinary and generally helpful esoteric experiences, if we want or allow them to happen. There is a surrender involved, letting go, including of one's rationality. That can make such meditations an absolute bugger to do if we love science, technology and philosophy. All of these not only rely on rationality, but can render logic beautiful enough that one is loathe to let go of it for even a moment.

Count Lucanor wrote:Religion, with its procession of superstitious beliefs, is trying to make a comeback. It has found a niche to regroup in the failure of capitalism to fulfill its promise of human flourishing. It really screwed up in the "spiritual" dimension of life.

It never left. Religions have largely controlled the world for thousands of years. The "secular west" is a myth. Every parliament remains filled with a n unrepresentative percentage of theists.

Count Lucanor wrote:

Greta wrote:I just don't think we have enough information. It would really help if we could understand most of reality, ie. dark matter and energy, not to mention better understanding what matter and energy actually are.

Give it another few thousand years and the boffins will have a much better idea of what's going on unless they open up yet more seemingly endless rabbit holes.

I disagree with that. I'm sure there is a lot that we don't know. We are far from reaching absolute knowledge and probably never will, but no reason to dismiss the stack of what we do know.

Are you saying that we can reliably extrapolate that our knowledge to represent the whole even though it is indubitably akin to the tip of the iceberg of knowledge? Do you believe that we have already apprehended most relevant knowledge about the nature of reality and there are only minor details to be determined? If so, you are braver than me.

Count Lucanor wrote:By the Occam's Razor principle, the new entities proposed can be summarily disregarded

In the same way as in the past how Occam's Razor posited the flat Earth, the geocentric universe and a Milky Way, alone in the comos amongst scattered stars? Occam's Razor is terribly blunt mental tool. It's a useful shortcut for those under time pressure.

Count Lucanor wrote:For the common man, science is still top-down discourse, coming from a socialized institution with power hierarchies and so on. Foucault was not wrong about that. But there's a difference with other discourses, which protects science from pure ideology. It is in the nature of its discourse, its methods and practices. It doesn't give you only the result of the inquiries, but how to get there.

Buddhism tends to do the same - methods, practices and results.

There is much paranoia about science being, rightly so, perceived as a tool of the elite that widens the gap between rich and poor. Is a revolution still possible when corporation-governments enjoy AI defences? Seems that ole Billy Joe - the gummint can't be trusted and no city slicker's takin' mah guns - does not yet know that he could own a tank and a bazooka and still be easily overwhelmed.

So science is erroneously being perceived today as a dictator, a disrespecter of personal experience, who seemingly airily dismiss their most precious life experiences as "merely anecdotal", reduced to mere statistics. This impression logically stems from deficiencies in education. The online world is replete with claims by those claiming that their internal experiences necessarily reflect a different objective reality or that subjective experience can be reduced to what is currently considered to be objective reality, despite a lack of actual evidence for either.

-- Updated 25 Nov 2017, 19:20 to add the following --

Dark Matter wrote:

Spectrum wrote:It appears Greta being an agnostic is living the 'not knowing' maxim more that your certainty of knowing God exists as real.

Is it? Or is it retreating into feigned non-belief? After all, people don’t talk about things they don’t have any beliefs about. If I were to guess, I'd say both you and Greta would rather believe in magic than entertain the idea that consciousness-intelligence is fundamental. Why? I think it's because you have too much time and energy invested is your own beliefs to risk being open to other possibilities.

How does one feign non belief? I am simply not sure and can't see how I can be sure about these things. That does not preclude interest, especially given some of my peak experiences.

The "emergence is magic" jibe is just wasted words, given all the evidence for emergence and the lack of evidence for a fundamental consciousness. I don't see why consciousness would not be an emergent property. After all, we've been through the process itself, experiencing the blankness of gestation leading to infant consciousness, which is very basic. Then a mature adult consciousness gradually emergences with experience. When you were an infant, you were not one to postulate that consciousness was fundamental - your were instead obsessed with burying your face into breasts as big as your head.

The change from milk obsessive to philosophical theist wasn't magic, it was growth, and growth includes the emergence of novel properties. Not that the properties are entirely novel, though, due the fractal nature of reality, but they are relatively novel.

See post #91 and #97. As I said, nothing is certain, but we all have a conceptual frame (beliefs) in which to think. Either we are unaware of that frame or feign non-belief to avoid controversy.

If "having a belief about something" means adopting a personal position on it then people frequently discuss things about which they have no belief. They just have to be interested in the world and the people and things in it. I have no personal position on which football team is going to win the League this season, but I talk about football frequently to my son because he's interested in it, and I'm interested in him. Likewise, religion is clearly very important to vast numbers of people, and has been since time immemorial. That makes it an interesting subject, without having to have any personal religious beliefs. People are interesting.

Admitting that one does not know everything is dishonest? The notion that I secretly "know" is simply wrong. I cannot possibly know these things. Nor can you, DM. Maybe it's your certainty that is feigned, thus you defend it fiercely. However, while I see you as making a logical error, that may not be a life error. Thus, it's not logical to believe you can win a tennis match against a better opponent, yet that belief is needed if you are to pull off an upset.

Now, your post #91 where you lambaste those with the temerity to admit that they don't know everything :P

“Not-knowing” is a state of mind, the mother of openness, questioning, authenticity, and freedom. It's not a pretense to self-congratulatory ignorance. Its nature is consciousness without form, possibility without limit, honesty without distortion. Not-knowing is a natural and healthy aspect of being alive, but in our scientific and evidence-dependent culture we have no foundation upon which to understand it.

The self-congratulatory “I don't know” put forward by many atheists is not the Socratic kind of not-knowing, but applied superficiality because consciously or unconsciously, we all have a conceptual frame of reference that allows us to make sense of the world. Placing ourselves in a negative relationship to the structure that is, for us, fundamentally true is a very silly and damaging thing to do. To go through life as though self-congratulatory ignorance is good and not-knowing is bad leaves us with an aberrant relationship to our own condition.

The unwillingness to expose one's conceptual frame to challenge by retreating into feigned non-belief, very common in forums such as this, is cowardice; ignorance of one's conceptual frame is the very definition of self-ignorance and superficiality. Nowadays, it's social norm. Confidence in one's conceptual frame is is considered to be “closed-mindedness,” “intolerance,” “irrational obstinance,” “bigotry” or even “hate.”

"A pretence of self-congratulatory ignorance" ... basically, you are claiming that I am pretending to be ignorant, while I actually do know the ultimate truth about reality, and then congratulating myself for being ignorant.

This is akin to claiming an ant is only pretending to not understand astronomy. I do not think the ants are feigning ignorance; they simply do not have the capacity to comprehend astronomy, and neither do we have the capacity to create valid frames of references. To my mind, so-called "frames of reference" are just practical placeholders in lieu of understanding, and ideally will flexible and open.

As I had stated ALL humans has the potential to commit a wide range of evil and some are unfortunately born with an active evil tendency. Those born with an inherent active evil tendency [evil prone] will commit evils when triggered by a wide range of evil laden stimuli.

Fanman wrote:I don't think that anyone is born with an "active evil tendency" (whatever that is). I don't feel qualified to say specifically why people commit evil acts, but I think that what we are exposed to and our psychosocial development plays a huge part in the type of people we become.

It is most likely human acts are a combination of 'Nature' in combination with 'Nurture' [parental or environmental exposure]. But we have to consider the ratio of the combination.

As stated, DNA wise, ALL humans are born with the potential to commit evil.
One of the source of evil is jealousy which is active in babies are young as 4-5 months old;

"It has always been thought that until the second year of life babies could not experience jealousy which implies a sense of others rather than self," said Dr. Riccardo Draghi-Lorenz, the psychologist who conducted the study at Portsmouth University. "By chance I noticed a baby of four or five months showing what looked like jealousy and I decided to find out."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... lousy.html

• 11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/ ... 95713.html

I have read there are young children [2-3-4] who had 'killed' their baby sibling out of jealousy. I am trying to find the link.

There are another aspect of research re 'Nature' involving impulse controls in young children.

Thus one clue to those born with an active evil tendency are those babies [toddlers - young child] who are has low level of impulse controls and thus cannot control their jealousy, anger, and violent responses [research on babies fighting].

Jealousy is one root activating evil acts. There are many other proximate root causes of evil acts. The above is my justification of why SOME percentile of humans are born with an active evil tendencies. The evidence from babies and young toddlers indicate the root cause of the seed of evil is significantly due to 'Nature' [say 99%] and 1% Nurture to cover for any of such possibility.

I had estimated 20% [conservatively] of human are born with an active evil tendency, i.e. a great propensity to commit evil acts when triggered by evil laden elements, in this case, as from immutable evil laden verses from holy books.

PS: One significant point I have not discussed is, the leverage of immutable evil laden verses in holy book is SO strong that it will influence those born and nurtured with good tendencies to commit evil acts.

Note Steven Weinberg who noted the obvious within theism [mine];

• "Religion [theistic] is an insult to human dignity.
  With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
  But for good people to do evil things, that takes [theistic] religion."

Btw, if you research extensively on the above points you will be able to infer from evidence 'some humans are born with an active evil tendencies' i.e. easy and vulnerable to be influence by evil laden stimuli to commit evil.

As I had stated these religious triggered evils are very significant at present thus humanity must strive to prevent, reduced or get rid of it.

I don't think that dissolving religion is necessarily the right idea. Evil is insidious, as such I don't think that it would simply disappear or lessen if we remove religion. One of the vehicles used to perpetrate evil would be gone, but evil would still exist – it doesn't necessarily follow that it would reduce. There may not be a God, but religion also does good and is beneficial for many people. I don't see a future without religion being a less evil one.

At present,getting rid of ALL religions [especially Islam] is not the optimal solution, note my 'signature' below.

You still do not get my point.
Humanity must strive to get rid of ALL evils and prevent ALL evil acts.
To be effective we must break down ALL evils into specific categories and deal with them.
I am only focussing on religion because this is a religious forum.

All religions [organized] has their share of negative. Even Buddhism, not its doctrine, has its share of scandals by monks taking advantage of their position and ranks.
In the future [100, 200 or more years], Humanity must strive [beginning] for non-religious foolproof alternatives to replace [voluntarily] religious-based programs to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Committing evil acts may be part of the nature of the human spirit or the human condition, as such, I don't think that the elimination of evil is a possibility. Your logic is seemingly "if we get rid of religion we get rid of religious evil", but you cannot eliminate the human propensity to look for something greater than ourselves, to look for spiritual resolution, or "God". Due to human nature, I think that the door to God will always be open. People don't have "on and off" switches to deep aspects of our psyche and conditioning raises moral questions such as freedom of choice.

It is obvious, "if we get rid of religion we get rid of religious evil" especially theistic religion which is grounded on nothing real except an illusory God.

What I am doing is to reveal is, the truth of the basis of such an illusory God is actually driven by a very fundamental and strong impulse from an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies has directed their attention to non-theistic doctrines without evil laden elements to address the SAME inherent unavoidable existential crisis without inspiring terrors, violence and all sort of evils.

Since these Eastern philosophies has done it successfully with great potentials, we can close the door to 'God' when we have develop and cultivate the psychological state in the future to replace the evil laden theistic approaches.

Not at all. You may be misinterpreting me. For me, religion is not analogous to cancer in all circumstances. In some it is, but I don't think that dissolving religion would solve the problem of evil or reduce evil acts. Religion in cases of terror is the vehicle for hate. If you take away the vehicle, the hate and will to commit acts of terror still remains. Your reasoning seems to hold that without religion people will somehow become "angels".

Nope!
My conclusion is, logically, without religion there will not be any religious-based evil acts.
I [so did others] have done extensively research to demonstrate Islam is inherently malignant and evil with its immutable evil laden verses and ethos. Christianity has 'evil' elements to hinder humanity's progress but in the violence sense.

Unless it is a part your job, why would you focus on something that you don't have feelings about? I don't think you're being objective, but as you say you are I'm not going to argue with you about it.

'Feeling' in this sense is 'being strongly emotional' with the task. As you will note, SOME theists are so emotional with their belief that they will kill even perceiving a threat to their security upon the drawing of cartoons of their prophet.

My thesis is religious-based terrors, violence and evils are due to the following critical root causes;
1. Theists who are unfortunately born [so not their fault] with an evil tendencies.
2. Immutable evil laden element 'commanded' by God in the holy texts

I don't agree with your first point, but I agree with your second point insomuch as it is a cause, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a root cause.

Note my explanation above re babies displaying evil tendencies and some toddler acting upon them.

I see you have lack expertise in Problem Solving techniques where the critical approaches are 
1. to break down the problem down to its smallest parts, 
2. trace the root causes and 
3. review each specific problem in the wider whole view.

Why, because I don't see things the way you do? That assessment is a strawman bro, feel free to beat it up .

The efficient strategies of Problem Solving Techniques [my forte] is very Universal.

• More than anything else, an analytical approach is the use of an appropriate process to break a problem down into the smaller pieces necessary to solve it. Each piece becomes a smaller and easier problem to solve.
  http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/ ... /index.htm

• Break large tasks down into smaller, more manageable pieces
  http://columns.uga.edu/news/article/bre ... le-pieces/

If you don't practice the above initial strategy in addressing a complex issue like 'ALL Evil Acts and Problems" you are likely to end up with a mess and inefficiencies.

Note: I am not the type who will simply throw in wishy-washy frivolous views from the air.
I always make sure whatever points I have made is well supported by my own extensive research and you will note most of the time I have provided links responsibly.

Greta wrote:Admitting that one does not know everything is dishonest? The notion that I secretly "know" is simply wrong. I cannot possibly know these things. Nor can you, DM. Maybe it's your certainty that is feigned, thus you defend it fiercely. However, while I see you as making a logical error, that may not be a life error. Thus, it's not logical to believe you can win a tennis match against a better opponent, yet that belief is needed if you are to pull off an upset.

Now, your post #91 where you lambaste those with the temerity to admit that they don't know everything

“Not-knowing” is a state of mind, the mother of openness, questioning, authenticity, and freedom. It's not a pretense to self-congratulatory ignorance. Its nature is consciousness without form, possibility without limit, honesty without distortion. Not-knowing is a natural and healthy aspect of being alive, but in our scientific and evidence-dependent culture we have no foundation upon which to understand it.

The self-congratulatory “I don't know” put forward by many atheists is not the Socratic kind of not-knowing, but applied superficiality because consciously or unconsciously, we all have a conceptual frame of reference that allows us to make sense of the world. Placing ourselves in a negative relationship to the structure that is, for us, fundamentally true is a very silly and damaging thing to do. To go through life as though self-congratulatory ignorance is good and not-knowing is bad leaves us with an aberrant relationship to our own condition.

The unwillingness to expose one's conceptual frame to challenge by retreating into feigned non-belief, very common in forums such as this, is cowardice; ignorance of one's conceptual frame is the very definition of self-ignorance and superficiality. Nowadays, it's social norm. Confidence in one's conceptual frame is is considered to be “closed-mindedness,” “intolerance,” “irrational obstinance,” “bigotry” or even “hate.”

"A pretence of self-congratulatory ignorance" ... basically, you are claiming that I am pretending to be ignorant, while I actually do know the ultimate truth about reality, and then congratulating myself for being ignorant.

This is akin to claiming an ant is only pretending to not understand astronomy. I do not think the ants are feigning ignorance; they simply do not have the capacity to comprehend astronomy, and neither do we have the capacity to create valid frames of references. To my mind, so-called "frames of reference" are just practical placeholders in lieu of understanding, and ideally will flexible and open.

I suggest reading what was said without your prejudices getting in the way.

Greta wrote: My suspicion is that spirituality is an artistic and creative act, and religions would ideally be thought of as artistic institutions, with the human intellect and and emotions the "canvas". Spirituality is a kind of "life hack" - humans do have this intrinsic capability to have extraordinary and generally helpful esoteric experiences, if we want or allow them to happen. There is a surrender involved, letting go, including of one's rationality. That can make such meditations an absolute bugger to do if we love science, technology and philosophy. All of these not only rely on rationality, but can render logic beautiful enough that one is loathe to let go of it for even a moment.

"Spirituality" I take it as the dimension of human life in which humans are true to themselves, in which they are no longer estranged from their essence. Perhaps, as Feuerbach thought, the idea of god is a measure of man's alienation. And then no wonder why this god is a creator, because the true essence of humanity is creation. And our sinful fall, our only first fall, is to have alienated ourselves from the things we create, the products of our labour, while submitting the powers of our imagination to the callous demands of economic production. So I somehow agree with you, although I would stay away from the term "esoteric", which seems to relate art to something arcane, ineffable.

Greta wrote:

Count Lucanor wrote: Religion, with its procession of superstitious beliefs, is trying to make a comeback. It has found a niche to regroup in the failure of capitalism to fulfill its promise of human flourishing. It really screwed up in the "spiritual" dimension of life.

It never left. Religions have largely controlled the world for thousands of years. The "secular west" is a myth. Every parliament remains filled with a n unrepresentative percentage of theists.

I don't think it's myth, just an incomplete project. And one we must strive for. That there are theists in parliaments should not be a problem for secularism, as long as their own personal beliefs are not imposed on others. Secularism is not about being an atheist, but about being neutral.

Greta wrote: Are you saying that we can reliably extrapolate that our knowledge to represent the whole even though it is indubitably akin to the tip of the iceberg of knowledge? Do you believe that we have already apprehended most relevant knowledge about the nature of reality and there are only minor details to be determined? If so, you are braver than me.

I'm saying we shouldn't extrapolate if we can't. That means not expecting to have another ultimate, transcendent reality, which finally will give sense to the whole universe. There's already a lot of sense in this part of the iceberg, even when realizing our monumental failures in dealing with it. And we do know that the tip of the iceberg was smaller when science and reason started to take over the methods of inquiry.

Dark Matter wrote:I suggest reading what was said without your prejudices getting in the way.

I would hope that you might do the same.

-- Updated 26 Nov 2017, 02:05 to add the following --

Count Lucanor wrote:

Greta wrote: My suspicion is that spirituality is an artistic and creative act, and religions would ideally be thought of as artistic institutions, with the human intellect and and emotions the "canvas". Spirituality is a kind of "life hack" - humans do have this intrinsic capability to have extraordinary and generally helpful esoteric experiences, if we want or allow them to happen. There is a surrender involved, letting go, including of one's rationality. That can make such meditations an absolute bugger to do if we love science, technology and philosophy. All of these not only rely on rationality, but can render logic beautiful enough that one is loathe to let go of it for even a moment.

"Spirituality" I take it as the dimension of human life in which humans are true to themselves, in which they are no longer estranged from their essence. Perhaps, as Feuerbach thought, the idea of god is a measure of man's alienation. And then no wonder why this god is a creator, because the true essence of humanity is creation. And our sinful fall, our only first fall, is to have alienated ourselves from the things we create, the products of our labour, while submitting the powers of our imagination to the callous demands of economic production. So I somehow agree with you, although I would stay away from the term "esoteric", which seems to relate art to something arcane, ineffable.

I see creativity as an aspect of humanity's main orientation - exploration. This includes the exploration of alternative mental and emotional states, something that is generally discouraged in the industrialised world, as such explorations are not considered helpful for productivity. Whatever God may or may not be, it is necessarily associated with exploratory or unusual mental states.

Count Lucanor wrote:I don't think it's [secular society] myth, just an incomplete project. And one we must strive for. That there are theists in parliaments should not be a problem for secularism, as long as their own personal beliefs are not imposed on others. Secularism is not about being an atheist, but about being neutral.

Secular society is to theism what democracy is to oligarchies. Just a palatable face, at this stage. "Incomplete project" is an understatement. Most Australians favour gay marriage, euthanasia, responsible action on climate change and lower migration levels. However, lobbyists from multinational companies and religions remain in almost complete control, and only the first has any hope of being enacted nationally in the foreseeable future.

Count Lucanor wrote:

Greta wrote:Are you saying that we can reliably extrapolate that our knowledge to represent the whole even though it is indubitably akin to the tip of the iceberg of knowledge? Do you believe that we have already apprehended most relevant knowledge about the nature of reality and there are only minor details to be determined? If so, you are braver than me.

I'm saying we shouldn't extrapolate if we can't. That means not expecting to have another ultimate, transcendent reality, which finally will give sense to the whole universe. There's already a lot of sense in this part of the iceberg, even when realizing our monumental failures in dealing with it. And we do know that the tip of the iceberg was smaller when science and reason started to take over the methods of inquiry.

Yet you are extrapolating, and also limiting possibilities. Consider the possibility that our relationship to time may be more biased than we realised, or that there are other dimensions, or that the nature of information is not as we assumed. Any of these things could create a godlike impression. That's the key - the question is ultimately not about what a deity might or might not be, but the subjective impressions of such.

Spectrum:

It is most likely human acts are a combination of 'Nature' in combination with 'Nurture' [parental or environmental exposure]. But we have to consider the ratio of the combination.

I agree. Although without there being an "evil gene" and understanding exactly why we are born with a capacity to commit evil, and understanding the degree to which nurture effects a person's propensity for evil, it is difficult to discuss "ratios", as it's not an exact science. However, I think its very open to discussion.

As stated, DNA wise, ALL humans are born with the potential to commit evil.

I don't know if its in our DNA, but I agree.

I had estimated 20% [conservatively] of human are born with an active evil tendency, i.e. a great propensity to commit evil acts when triggered by evil laden elements, in this case, as from immutable evil laden verses from holy books.

If, by an "active evil tendency" you mean "capacity to commit evil acts" then I agree with you generally, but I don't agree with your specificity.

"Religion [theistic] is an insult to human dignity. 
With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. 
But for good people to do evil things, that takes [theistic] religion."

I don't think that theistic religion is an insult to human dignity, why? Good people can commit evil acts for many more reasons than religion alone.

Btw, if you research extensively on the above points you will be able to infer from evidence 'some humans are born with an active evil tendencies' i.e. easy and vulnerable to be influence by evil laden stimuli to commit evil.

I agree that some people are more prone to be influenced negatively than others, but I wouldn't isolate an inborn propensity as the sole cause. As we have discussed, nurture is also a huge factor. We cannot know if someone is born with a high propensity for committing evil acts. In order to understand how a person will develop, we have to look at their family and environment, and even then a person can develop in ways that we don't expect them to.

You still do not get my point.
Humanity must strive to get rid of ALL evils and prevent ALL evil acts.
To be effective we must break down ALL evils into specific categories and deal with them.
I am only focussing on religion because this is a religious forum.

I think I do get your point, I just don't agree with you in all aspects. I don't think that humanity will ever be rid of evil. If, as you say, humans are born with an "active evil tendency" how would that be a logical possibility? We have laws against evil and there are other methods which have been implemented to reduce evil. What you propose is seems like some type of "global initiative". You have to bear in mind that some people profit from the evils that exist, as long as there's profit from evil, it will be difficult to eliminate.

In the future [100, 200 or more years], Humanity must strive [beginning] for non-religious foolproof alternatives to replace [voluntarily] religious-based programs to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

You clearly recognise the nature of existential crisis and what it can lead to, but you're talking about altering the human condition, I don't think that people can be conditioned out of existential crisis. I don't agree that it is the root cause of all religious beliefs, as there are other factors to consider, but I agree that it is one of the causes.

It is obvious, "if we get rid of religion we get rid of religious evil" especially theistic religion which is grounded on nothing real except an illusory God.

If theistic religious beliefs are inextricable from existential crisis, how are we going to get rid of religion? I've already stated why I think that religious evils could survive the extinction of religion. I would just be repeating myself.

Since these Eastern philosophies has done it successfully with great potentials, we can close the door to 'God' when we have develop and cultivate the psychological state in the future to replace the evil laden theistic approaches.

Isn't that replacing one religion with another spiritual ideology? I think that some people will always believe there's more to reality than what can be evidenced empirically, you can't (IMO) account for people having beliefs. If we close the door to "God", we become locked in a material reality which may not be the case. Yes, theistic approaches have issues and may not be real, but without universal certainty, to close the door entirely seems presumptuous.

The efficient strategies of Problem Solving Techniques [my forte] is very Universal.

Does that imply something?

If you don't practice the above initial strategy in addressing a complex issue like 'ALL Evil Acts and Problems" you are likely to end up with a mess and inefficiencies.

We're just having a discussion. I never claimed to have expertise.

More than anything else, an analytical approach is the use of an appropriate process to break a problem down into the smaller pieces necessary to solve it. Each piece becomes a smaller and easier problem to solve.

That's a given. We aren't trying to solve any problems here. Well I'm not anyway.

Note: I am not the type who will simply throw in wishy-washy frivolous views from the air.
I always make sure whatever points I have made is well supported by my own extensive research and you will note most of the time I have provided links responsibly.

That doesn't mean that you can't be wrong about some of things you're saying.

Fanman wrote:Spectrum:

It is most likely human acts are a combination of 'Nature' in combination with 'Nurture' [parental or environmental exposure]. But we have to consider the ratio of the combination.

I agree. Although without there being an "evil gene" and understanding exactly why we are born with a capacity to commit evil, and understanding the degree to which nurture effects a person's propensity for evil, it is difficult to discuss "ratios", as it's not an exact science. However, I think its very open to discussion.

It is impossible for a 100% Nature or 100% Nurture claim on any human behavior.
This is why many researchers are using babies as young and possible or twins [in exact (almost) nurture environment] to eliminate the 'nurture' factors. In such conclusions we can give heavier weightage to the 'Nature' factor, say >90%.

Note this "Twin baby girls fight over pacifier" and the evidence of primal aggression,; Do you think the above acts by the babies were due to 'Nurture'? Perhaps the parents were always fight in front of them in the few months after birth?
There are many other observations of babies that demonstrate the clues to an inherent potential and evil [as defined] acts.

As stated, DNA wise, ALL humans are born with the potential to commit evil.

I don't know if its in our DNA, but I agree.

All the elements for potential evil acts are in the human DNA blue print and activated in life - e.g. note the video above.

I had estimated 20% [conservatively] of human are born with an active evil tendency, i.e. a great propensity to commit evil acts when triggered by evil laden elements, in this case, as from immutable evil laden verses from holy books.

If, by an "active evil tendency" you mean "capacity to commit evil acts" then I agree with you generally, but I don't agree with your specificity.

I had defined 'evil' as in evil acts as any human acts that are net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom to humanity. This definition must be supported with a 'taxonomy' of evil acts. Putting 'evil acts' in a continuum, they will range from lowest [e.g. lying, corruption,] to the highest degrees.
Based on your own assessment, how many % of human has this tendency [activated] to lie [of any degree]? I believe 80% is a realistic number. Therefore my 20% is a very conservative hypothesis in reference to evilness of higher degrees.

"Religion [theistic] is an insult to human dignity. 
With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. 
But for good people to do evil things, that takes [theistic] religion."

I don't think that theistic religion is an insult to human dignity, why? Good people can commit evil acts for many more reasons than religion alone.

You seem to be missing this point - blind sighted to it?
The specific subject [also this forum] is about 'religion' that is why Weinberg did not mention other reasons. I do not take it that he was referring to ALL religions.
Theistic religions like Islam with its immutable evil laden verses inspire evil prone Muslims to kill non-believers [even if it is their parents, child and kins] as a divine duty [deemed as good] so as to receive preferred higher rewards in Paradise.

Btw, if you research extensively on the above points you will be able to infer from evidence 'some humans are born with an active evil tendencies' i.e. easy and vulnerable to be influence by evil laden stimuli to commit evil.

I agree that some people are more prone to be influenced negatively than others, but I wouldn't isolate an inborn propensity as the sole cause. As we have discussed, nurture is also a huge factor. We cannot know if someone is born with a high propensity for committing evil acts. In order to understand how a person will develop, we have to look at their family and environment, and even then a person can develop in ways that we don't expect them to.

I did not claim the inborn propensity is the sole cause. Note in this specific forum on religion, I highlighted the following two main root causes, i.e.

• 1. 20% who are born with an active evil tendency to commit evil acts,
  2. Immutable evil laden elements in holy texts from an illusory God.

If it is general or other subjects, I will bring in other reasons in addition to religions with evil laden verses.

You still do not get my point.
Humanity must strive to get rid of ALL evils and prevent ALL evil acts.
To be effective we must break down ALL evils into specific categories and deal with them.
I am only focussing on religion because this is a religious forum.

I think I do get your point, I just don't agree with you in all aspects. I don't think that humanity will ever be rid of evil. If, as you say, humans are born with an "active evil tendency" how would that be a logical possibility? We have laws against evil and there are other methods which have been implemented to reduce evil. What you propose is seems like some type of "global initiative". You have to bear in mind that some people profit from the evils that exist, as long as there's profit from evil, it will be difficult to eliminate.

As I had claimed 20% are born with an active evil tendency to commit evilness of greater degrees, e.g. terrors, violence [of various degrees], oppression, rapes, genocides.
Thus one solution is to understand thoroughly what is going on in the brain/mind of those 80% who has the potential but they do not have an active tendency to commit evil acts. If they have why only confined to very low degrees of evilness.
I am optimistic given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge we can soon - in the near future - focus the problem of evil from the neural and more refined levels at the ultimate and proximate root causes.
We need to strive towards the direction of advancement rather than cling to various hindrances e.g. the stupidity of the regressive left's 'political correctness'.

In the future [100, 200 or more years], Humanity must strive [beginning] for non-religious foolproof alternatives to replace [voluntarily] religious-based programs to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

You clearly recognise the nature of existential crisis and what it can lead to, but you're talking about altering the human condition, I don't think that people can be conditioned out of existential crisis. I don't agree that it is the root cause of all religious beliefs, as there are other factors to consider, but I agree that it is one of the causes.

Note my proposal to focus from the neural perspective [ultimate root cause] above.

It is obvious, "if we get rid of religion we get rid of religious evil" especially theistic religion which is grounded on nothing real except an illusory God.

If theistic religious beliefs are inextricable from existential crisis, how are we going to get rid of religion? I've already stated why I think that religious evils could survive the extinction of religion. I would just be repeating myself.

What I am proposing is getting rid of religion, i.e. religiosity and its related negatives and replace them voluntarily with foolproof purely neural-based spiritual approaches to deal with that existential crisis, [ in the future, not now].

Since these Eastern philosophies has done it successfully with great potentials, we can close the door to 'God' when we have develop and cultivate the psychological state in the future to replace the evil laden theistic approaches.

Isn't that replacing one religion with another spiritual ideology? I think that some people will always believe there's more to reality than what can be evidenced empirically, you can't (IMO) account for people having beliefs. If we close the door to "God", we become locked in a material reality which may not be the case. Yes, theistic approaches have issues and may not be real, but without universal certainty, to close the door entirely seems presumptuous.

Once we have identified precisely the real ultimate problem that is generating psychological angst that drive theists to an impossible God, then provide people foolproof generic spiritual alternatives, they will naturally and voluntarily give up belief in a God that is illusory and an impossibility.
I am NOT saying this will be done tomorrow or the next 20 years, but we must strive now [given evidence of its potential] to realize this possibility within the next 100 years.

The efficient strategies of Problem Solving Techniques [my forte] is very Universal.

Does that imply something?

Yes, I am often accused of picking views from nowhere and arbitrarily. So I have to provide some clues.

More than anything else, an analytical approach is the use of an appropriate process to break a problem down into the smaller pieces necessary to solve it. Each piece becomes a smaller and easier problem to solve.

That's a given. We aren't trying to solve any problems here. Well I'm not anyway.

The problem of Islamic-based terrors, violence and evil is a reality at present and I am trying to contribute to a solution to this critical threat to humanity in the future. I have traced the ultimate root of this problem to religion in general, an illusory God and primal human psychology.

Note: I am not the type who will simply throw in wishy-washy frivolous views from the air.
I always make sure whatever points I have made is well supported by my own extensive research and you will note most of the time I have provided links responsibly.

That doesn't mean that you can't be wrong about some of things you're saying.

It is a default, being human I cannot be infallible. That is why I am throwing ideas [not forcing anyone to accept without self-verification] and inviting criticisms.

Spectrum:

There's isn't anything further I'd like to add, as I think I'd just be repeating myself. Thanks for the discussion it was interesting.

Greta wrote: I see creativity as an aspect of humanity's main orientation - exploration. This includes the exploration of alternative mental and emotional states, something that is generally discouraged in the industrialised world, as such explorations are not considered helpful for productivity. Whatever God may or may not be, it is necessarily associated with exploratory or unusual mental states.

I think that at the current stage of the industrialised world, there's perhaps too much exploration of the supposed supernatural domain, full of wizards, superheros, vampires, werewolves and magical forces. They have become ubiquitous in every aspect of culture. Gods are just other inhabitants of this immaterial sphere. Most likely a reaction to that which is missing in the sphere of production and the social organization that comes along with it. And before that, through the ages and up to the 19th century, most western art was devoted to heavenly creatures and the tales of religion. After a while in the Louvre, you get tired of accounts of angels and biblical scenes, that were going on for centuries as the sole subject of artistic endeavors. I would say that's more than enough exploration. Thus, a new type of social order is required, one in which explorations exhaust all possibilities of the concrete conditions of existence, including the playful games of imagination and our psychological tangles, instead of looking for escape and consolation in other dubious dimensions of reality.

Greta wrote: Secular society is to theism what democracy is to oligarchies. Just a palatable face, at this stage. "Incomplete project" is an understatement.

Leaving aside the validity of that assesment, I don't think anyone criticizing the shortcomings of formal democracies will propose as an alternative: "let's stick then to oligarchy".

Greta wrote: Most Australians favour gay marriage, euthanasia, responsible action on climate change and lower migration levels. However, lobbyists from multinational companies and religions remain in almost complete control, and only the first has any hope of being enacted nationally in the foreseeable future.

Maybe that's because the average Australian voter is like the average voter anywhere else. And maybe there's a correlation between that and the popular belief in mysterious forces ruling over human affairs. Perhaps they all have a copy of "The Secret" in their bookshelves.

Greta wrote:Yet you are extrapolating, and also limiting possibilities. Consider the possibility that our relationship to time may be more biased than we realised, or that there are other dimensions, or that the nature of information is not as we assumed. Any of these things could create a godlike impression. That's the key - the question is ultimately not about what a deity might or might not be, but the subjective impressions of such.

In the context of this discussion, extrapolating means transcending. I can't extrapolate in that sense because I reject transcendence in favor of immanence. Secularism, humanism and the philosophy of science are profoundly immanent. You seem to be very open to the possibility of transcendence, while reluctant to give any chance to immanence, which is your legitimate choice. But for me, whatever can be speculated about what's beyond our current knowledge, does not lead automatically to godlike impressions. Gods are inventions of human imagination, but they are neither necessary biologically, nor socially. They are just other characters in the fairy tales of humanity. General purpose faculties in the human brain may be the enabling conditions of religion, but so are of videogaming. And no one is saying you gotta give a chance to our subjective impressions of Super Mario for exploring the deep labyrinths of the human condition.

Count Lucanor wrote:

Greta wrote: I see creativity as an aspect of humanity's main orientation - exploration. This includes the exploration of alternative mental and emotional states, something that is generally discouraged in the industrialised world, as such explorations are not considered helpful for productivity. Whatever God may or may not be, it is necessarily associated with exploratory or unusual mental states.

I think that at the current stage of the industrialised world, there's perhaps too much exploration of the supposed supernatural domain, full of wizards, superheros, vampires, werewolves and magical forces. They have become ubiquitous in every aspect of culture. Gods are just other inhabitants of this immaterial sphere. Most likely a reaction to that which is missing in the sphere of production and the social organization that comes along with it. And before that, through the ages and up to the 19th century, most western art was devoted to heavenly creatures and the tales of religion. After a while in the Louvre, you get tired of accounts of angels and biblical scenes, that were going on for centuries as the sole subject of artistic endeavors. I would say that's more than enough exploration. Thus, a new type of social order is required, one in which explorations exhaust all possibilities of the concrete conditions of existence, including the playful games of imagination and our psychological tangles, instead of looking for escape and consolation in other dubious dimensions of reality.

Oh, everyone seems to be advocating a new social order today. I'm sure it will come of its own accord, as it always does. We are each just one wave in the process of eroding the cliff face.

I am the wrong person to complain to - almost all art that I enjoy is supernatural or esoteric. I detest "sophisticated" human interest stories, especially the emotional manipulation. Ugh. Bring on the gods, vampires and the aliens, I say. Let's face it, we have created functional societies but they are incredibly sanitised and dull. The safety and cleanliness are wonderful, indispensible, but that still doesn't make it less boring. Consider what society prescribes for all - work most of your life, have a family, touch no intoxicants but alcohol, stay focused and sensible and grounded and, if you want a buzz, here are some acceptable deities you can worship. Live music is reduced to tribute and covers bands. Buskers are mostly cleaned from the streets. Street art is strictly commissioned.

It is simply sterile. How can you blame people for seeking some magic in their lives? It's going to be the media or religion. Perhaps vampires and aliens would be preferable?

Count Lucanor wrote:

Greta wrote:Yet you are extrapolating, and also limiting possibilities. Consider the possibility that our relationship to time may be more biased than we realised, or that there are other dimensions, or that the nature of information is not as we assumed. Any of these things could create a godlike impression. That's the key - the question is ultimately not about what a deity might or might not be, but the subjective impressions of such.

In the context of this discussion, extrapolating means transcending. I can't extrapolate in that sense because I reject transcendence in favor of immanence. Secularism, humanism and the philosophy of science are profoundly immanent. You seem to be very open to the possibility of transcendence, while reluctant to give any chance to immanence, which is your legitimate choice. But for me, whatever can be speculated about what's beyond our current knowledge, does not lead automatically to godlike impressions. Gods are inventions of human imagination, but they are neither necessary biologically, nor socially. They are just other characters in the fairy tales of humanity. General purpose faculties in the human brain may be the enabling conditions of religion, but so are of videogaming. And no one is saying you gotta give a chance to our subjective impressions of Super Mario for exploring the deep labyrinths of the human condition.

My interpretation is that you have expanded on current knowledge to assume that gods are impossible, which by inference means that you figure there is nothing profoundly outside of our current conceptions that could be perceived as "God". Yet this is what is happening all the time, in peak experiences and NDEs, where people are experiencing things that they perceive as "God". Remember, science tells us the absolute baseline of what we are pretty sure is correct (not qualifier). Actual reality, with so much that is so complex that we can't yet measure or understand them, is necessarily much more interesting.

It all depends on how far our sciences have come, and none of us know that. Maybe we have a huge amount worked out with largely details and various interesting (but not profound) oddities in space and in QM? Or maybe even now we have barely scratched the surface?