BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING, By Greg Paul and Phil Zuckerman
Culture
post May 03, 2007, 12:03 PM
Post #1


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



Gregory Paul is an independent researcher on subjects dealing with paleontology, evolution, religion and society. Books include Predatory Dinosaurs of the World and Dinosaurs of the Air, the latter is the subject of a PBS NOVA episode in production. His analysis showing the societal decline and inferiority of 1st world religion in the Journal of Religion and Society (moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html, the journal refuses to publish further papers on the subject) got Paul labeled the churches public enemy #1 by MSNBC, and denounced as un-American in the Wall Street Journal.


A sociologist at Pitzer, Phil Zuckerman is the author of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, Du Bois on Religion, and Sex and Religion, and is working on a book that covers his ground breaking study of how Scandinavians are dealing with their secular societies. His Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006) verifies the inability of popular religiosity to thrive in modern, egalitarian democracies.


WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING

A myth is gaining ground. The myth seems plausible enough. The proposition is that after God died in the secular 20th century, He is back in a big way as people around the world again find faith. In 2006 Foreign Policy ran two articles that made similar, yet distinctive claims. In the spring Phillip Longman's "The Return of the Patriarchy" contended that secular folk are reproducing themselves, or failing to reproduce themselves, out of existence as the believers swiftly reproduce via a "process similar to survival of the fittest." In the summer FP followed up with "Why God is Winning" by Samuel Shah and Monica Duffy Toft, who pronounced that the Big Three— Christianity, Islam and Hinduism—are back on the global march as secularism fades into irrelevance. In the fall Foreign Affairs joined the chorus when Walter Russell Mead's God's Country? gave the impression that conservative theism continues to rise in a United States jolted back to the spiritual by 9/11. In American Fascists Chris Hedges warns that hard-core Dominionists are accumulating the power to convert the nation into a fundamentalist theocracy.

The actual situation, as is usual in human affairs, much more complex and nuanced, and therefore much more fascinating. Let's start by considering the analytical superficiality that mars the twin articles in Foreign Policy. While Longman proposes that rapid reproduction is the primary agent behind the resurgence of patriarchal faith, Shah and Toft think it is mainly a matter democratic choice in which younger generations reject their parent's secularism. In reality all these claims are well off base. Religion is in serious trouble. The status of faith is especially dire in the west, where the churches face an unprecedented crisis that threatens the existence of organized faith as a viable entity, and there is surprisingly little that can be done to change the circumstances.

Shah and Toft cite the World Christian Encyclopedia as supporting a planetary revival because its shows that "at the beginning of the 21st century, a greater portion of the world's population adhered to [Christianity, Islam and Hinduism] in 2000 than a century earlier." They point to a table in the WCE that shows that the largest Christian and largest nonChristian faiths, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and Hinduism, rose from half to nearly two thirds of the world in the 1900s. But that it is a peculiar choice of sects. If every Mohammedan and Hindu sect large and small is tallied, shouldn't every Orthodox, Coptic and so on be too? Another look at the WCE table shows that all Christians, Muslims and Hindus combined edging up a much more modest 60 to 66% (but see below correction) since the reign of Queen Victoria.

What scheme of thought did soar in the 20th century? Although Shah and Toft cite the WCE when it appears to aid their thesis, they seem to have missed key passages near the beginning of the work. The evangelical authors of the WCE lament that no Christian "in 1900 expected the massive defections from Christianity that subsequently took place in Western Europe due to secularism…. and in the Americas due to materialism…. The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000…. Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism…. Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world's religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems…. are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians" (italics added). (The WCE probably understates today's nonreligious. They have Christians constituting 68-94% of nations where surveys indicate that a quarter to half or more are not religious, and they may overestimate Chinese Christians by a factor of two. In that case the nonreligious probably soared past the billion mark already, and the three great faiths total 64% at most.)

Far from providing unambiguous evidence of the rise of faith, the devout compliers of the WCE document what they characterize as the spectacular ballooning of secularism by a few hundred-fold! It has no historical match. It dwarfs the widely heralded Mormon climb to 12 million during the same time, even the growth within Protestantism of Pentecostals from nearly nothing to half a billion does not equal it.

Yet Longman, and especially Shah and Toft, left readers with the impression that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are each regaining the international initiative against secularism. Again we can turn to the WCE, whose results are presented in the pie charts (with the above adjustment, and with the proviso that the stats are inevitably approximations).




Since 1900 Christians have made up about a third of the global population, and are edging downwards. No growth there. Hindus are coasting at a seventh the total, no significant increase there either even though India adds more people each year than any other nation. The WCE predicts no proportional increase for these faiths by 2050. The flourishing revival of two megareligions whether by democracy, edification, or fecundity is therefore a mirage. Having shrunk by a quarter in the 20th century, Buddhism is predicted to shrink almost as much over the next half century. Once rivaling Christianity, paganism – whether it be ancient or modern as per New Ageism and Scientology — has over all contracted by well over half and is expected to continue to dwindle.

One Great Faith has risen from one eighth to one fifth of the globe in a hundred years, and is projected to rise to one quarter by 2050. Islam. But education and the vote have little to do with it. Generally impoverished and poorly educated, most Muslims live in nations where democracy is minimalist or absent. Nor are many infidels converting to Allah. Longman was correct on one point; Islam is growing because Muslims are literally having lots of unprotected sex. The absence of a grand revival of Christ, Allah and Vishnu worship via democratic free choice brings us to a point, as important as it is little appreciated — the chronic inability of religion to recruit new adherents on a consistent, global basis.


It is well documented that Christianity has withered dramatically in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The failure of the faith in the west is regularly denounced by Popes and Protestant leaders. Churches are being converted into libraries, laundromats and pubs. Those who disbelieve in deities typically make up large portions of the population, according to some surveys they make up the majority of citizens in Scandinavia, France and Japan. Evolution is accepted by the majority in all secular nations, up to four in five in some.

In his paper "Christianity in Britain, R. I. P." Steve Bruce explains that the recent rise of pagans is not nearly sufficiently to make up for the implosion of the churches, which are in danger of dwindling past the demographic and organizational point of no return. A commission of the Church of England agreed, proposing that little attended Sabbath services be dropped, and concluding that the advent of modern lifestyles "coincides with the demise of Christendom." The church commissioned Making Sense of Generation Y study advised the clergy to "avoid panic." Perhaps that response would be appropriate considering the absence of quantitative evidence of a significant Christian revival in any secularized democracy. God belief is not dead in these nonreligious democracies, but it is on life support. The ardent hopes of C. S. Lewis and John Paul II to reChristianize Europe have abjectly failed.

EuroMuslims may become a theological plurality by outnumbering active Christians in a few decades, but that does not mean much in the context of a shrinking Christian minority. In most western nations Muslims are less than one percent to under three. The only exceptions are the Netherlands at five percent, and France at ten, and the native French have the highest birth rate in western Europe.

The mass loss of popular faith in the Eurocultures is often waved away as an isolated aberration in a world still infatuated with the gods. After all, who cares what the "old Europe" of France and Sweden is up to? This is a big mistake. Such a thing has never been seen before in history. And where it has happened is critical to the future of faith. Aside from constituting proof of principle that religion is dangerously vulnerable to modernity, that secularism and disbelief do best in nations that are the most democratic, educated and prosperous directly falsifies the Shah and Toft thesis that these factors are the allies of religiosity.

But hasn't the loss of faith in old Europe been matched by a great revival in new Europe? In his account of his voyage along the Siberian Lena River, Jeffrey Taylor in River of No Reprieve observed that the locals remain atheistic, and the religious minority seems more nationalistic than devout. This premise is applicable to former KGV officer Putin's embrace of the Russian Orthodox church, which had tight connections with the Czarist secret police. Just a quarter of Russians absolutely believe in God, the portion who say that religion is important in their lives are down in the teens, and irreligion may be continuing to rise in very atheistic eastern Germany and the Czech Republic. Even in Poland, the one eastern bloc nation in which religion played an important role in overturning atheistic communism, just one third consider religion to be very important in their lives, and faith is declining towards the old European norm. It turns out that the "new" Europe is not turning out particularly godly.

The Central Kingdom has never been especially religious, became atheistic under communism, and is striving for world dominance via materialistic consumerism. The finding by the Shanghai university poll that religious Chinese lifted from 100 million in the 1960s to 300 million resulted in headlines along the lines of "Poll Finds Surge of Religion Among Chinese." But the 300 million figure is far below the 600 million religious estimated by the World Christian Encyclopedia, and is less than a third of the adult population. Nor should monotheists be particularly comforted. The survey uncovered 40 million Christians, about half the inflated estimate in the WCE, and just 4% of the adult population. Most religious Chinese are Buddhists and Taoists, or worship the likes of the God of Fortune, the Black Dragon and the Dragon King. By the way, The Economist says women are using religion as a way to battle traditional Chinese patriarchy. If the survey is correct that over two thirds of Chinese are not religious then they may approach a billion in China alone, expanding the global total even further.

Mass devotion remains strong in most of the 2nd and 3rd world, but even there there is theistic concern. South of our border a quarter to over half the population describe religion as only somewhat important in their lives. Rather than becoming more patriarchal as democracy and education expand, Mexico is liberalizing as progressive forces successfully push laws favoring abortion and gay rights to the vexation of the Roman and evangelical churches. There is even trouble for Islam in its own realm. A third of Turks think religion is not highly important in their lives, and Iranian urban youth have been highly secularized in reaction to the inept corruption of the Mullahs. In Asia 40% of the citizens of booming South Korea don't believe in God, and only a quarter (most evangelical Christians) identify themselves as strongly religious.



Doesn't America, the one western nation where two thirds absolutely believe in God, and nine in ten think there is some form of higher power, show that religion can thrive in an advanced democracy? Not necessarily.

A decade and a half of sampling finds conservative (thought to be about two thirds to four fifths of the total of) evangelicals and born-agains consistently stuck between a quarter and a third of the population. The majority that considers religion very important in their lives dropped from over two thirds in the 1960s to a bare majority in 1970s and 1980s, and appeared to edge up in the Clinton era. But instead of rising post 9/11 as many predicted, it is slipping again.

Those who feel the opposite about religion doubled between the 1960s and 1970s, have been fairly stable since then, but have been edging up in recent years. American opinion on the issue of human evolution from animals has been rock steady, about half agreeing, about half disagreeing, for a quarter century. What has changed is how people view the Bible. In the 1970s nearly four in ten took the testaments literally, just a little over one in ten thought it was a mixture of history, fables, and legends, a three to one ratio in favor of the Biblical view. Since then a persistent trend has seen literalism decline to between a quarter and a third of the population, and skeptics have doubled to nearly one in five. If the trend continues the fableists will equal and then surpass the literalists in a couple of decades.



Even the megachurch phenomenon is illusory. A spiritual cross of sports stadiums with theme parks, hi-tech churches are a desperate effort to pull in and satisfy a mass-media jaded audience for whom the old sit in the pews and listen to the standard sermon and sing some old time hymns does not cut it anymore. Rather than boosting church membership, megachurches are merely consolidating it.

From a high of three quarters of the population in the 1930s to 1960s, a gradual, persistent decline has set in, leaving some clerics distressed at the growing abandonment of small churches as the big ones gobble up what is left of the rest. Weekly religious service attendance rose only briefly in the months after 9/11—evidence that the event failed to stem national secularization – and then lost ground as the Catholic sex scandal damaged church credibility. As few as one in four or five Americans are actually in church on a typical Sunday, only a few percent of them in megachurches.

In his Foreign Affairs article Mead noted that conservative Southern Baptists constitute the largest church in the states, and they are among the most evangelical. Mead did not note that a Southern Baptist church release laments that "evangelistically, the denomination is on a path of slow but discernable deterioration." The greatest born again sect is baptizing members at the same absolute yearly rate as they did half a century ago, when the population was half as large, and in the last few years the overall trend has been downwards.

Rather than Amerofaith becoming deeply patriarchal as Longman thinks, it is increasingly feminine. Women church goers greatly outnumber men, who find church too dull. Here's the kicker. Children tend to pick up their beliefs from their fathers. So, despite a vibrant evangelical youth cohort, young Americans taken as a whole are the least religious and most culturally tolerant age group in the nation.

One group has experienced rapid growth. In the 1940s and 50s 1-2% usually responded no asked if they believe in God, up to 98% said yes. A Harris study specifically designed to arrive at the best current figure found that 9% do not believe in a creator, and 12% are not sure. The over tenfold expansion of Amerorationalism easily outpaces the Mormon and Pentecostal growth rates over the same half century.

America's disbelievers atheists now number 30 million, most well educated and higher income, and they far outnumber American Jews, Muslims and Mormons combined. There are many more disbelievers than Southern Baptists, and the god skeptics are getting more recruits than the evangelicals.

The rise of American rationalism is based on adult choice—secularists certainly not growing via rapid reproduction. The results can be seen on the bookshelves, as aggressively atheistic books such as Sam Harris' The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell, break the mainstream publishing barrier onto the best-sellers lists. Long disparaged as neither moral or American, the growing community is beginning to assert itself as a socio-political force.


What is actually happening here and abroad is a great polarization as increasingly anxious and often desperate hard-core believers mount a vigorous counterrevolution via extreme levels of activism to the first emergence of mass apostasy in history. No major religion is expanding its share of the global population by conversion in any circumstances, much less educated democracy. Disbelief in the supernatural alone is able to achieve extraordinary rates of growth by voluntary conversion. Why?

It is to be expected that in 2nd and 3rd world nations where wealth is concentrated among an elite few and the masses are impoverished that the great majority cling to the reassurance of faith.

Nor is it all that surprising that faith has imploded in most of the west. Every single 1st world nation that is irreligious shares a set of distinctive attributes. These include handgun control, anti-corporal punishment and anti-bullying policies, rehabilitative rather than punitive incarceration, intensive sex education that emphasizes condom use, reduced socio-economic disparity via tax and welfare systems combined with comprehensive health care, increased leisure time that can be dedicated to family needs and stress reduction, and so forth.

As a result the great majority enjoy long, safe, comfortable, middle class lives that they can be confident will not be lost due to factors beyond their control. It is hard to lose one's middle class status in Europe, Canada and so forth, and modern medicine is always accessible regardless of income. Nor do these egalitarians culture emphasize the attainment of immense wealth and luxury, so most folks are reasonably satisfied with what they have got. Such circumstances dramatically reduces peoples' need to believe in supernatural forces that protect them from life's calamities, help them get what they don't have, or at least make up for them with the ultimate Club Med of heaven. One of us (Zuckerman) interviewed secular Europeans and verified that the process of secularization is casual; most hardly think about the issue of God, not finding the concept relevant to their contented lives.

The result is plain to see. Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity. They all go material.

It is the great anomaly, the United States, that has long perplexed sociologists. America has a large, well educated middle class that lives in comfort—so why do they still believe in a supernatural creator? Because they are afraid and insecure. Arbitrary dismissal from a long held job, loss of health insurance followed by an extended illness, excessive debt due to the struggle to live like the wealthy; before you know it a typical American family can find itself financially ruined. Overwhelming medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy.

In part to try to accumulate the wealth needed to try to prevent financial catastrophe, in part to compete in a culture of growing economic disparity with the super rich, the typical American is engaged in a Darwinian, keeping up with the Jones competition in which failure to perform to expectations further raises levels of psychological stress. It is not, therefore, surprising that most look to friendly forces from the beyond to protect them from the pitfalls of a risky American life, and if that fails compensate with a blissful eternal existence.

The effect can be more direct. For instance, the absence of universal health care encourages the utilization of faith-based medical charities. The latter, as well intentioned as they are, cannot provide the comprehensive health services that best suppress mortality at all ages. But charities extend the reach of the churches into the secular community, enhancing their ability to influence society and politics, and retain and recruit members.

Rather than religion being an integral part of the American character, the main reason the United States is the only prosperous democracy that retains a high level of religious belief and activity is because we have substandard socio-economic conditions and the highest level of disparity. The other factors widely thought to be driving forces behind mass faith—desire for the social links provided by churches, fear of societal amorality, fear of death, genetic predisposition towards religiosity, etc—are not critical simply because hundreds of millions have freely accepted being nonreligious mortals in a dozen and a half democracies. Such motives and factors can be operative only if socio-economic circumstances are sufficiently poor to sustain mass creationism and religion.

So much for the common belief that supernatural-based religiosity is the default mode inherent to the human condition. What about the hypothesis that has gained wide currency, that competition between the plethora of churches spawned by the separation of church and state is responsible for America's highly religious population? Australia and New Zealand copied the American separation between church and state in their constitutions, yet they are much more irreligious. Meanwhile the most religious advanced democracies in Europe are those where the Catholic church is, or was, dominant.

To put it starkly, the level of popular religion is not a spiritual matter, it is actually the result of social, political and especially economic conditions (please note we are discussing large scale, long term population trends, not individual cases). Mass rejection of the gods invariably blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education found in almost all 1st world democracies. There are no exceptions on a national basis. That is why only disbelief has proven able to grow via democratic conversion in the benign environment of education and egalitarian prosperity. Mass faith prospers solely in the context of the comparatively primitive social, economic and educational disparities and poverty still characteristic of the 2nd and 3rd worlds and the US.

We can also explain why America is has become increasingly at odds with itself. On one hand the growing level of socio-economic disparity that is leaving an increasing portion of the population behind in the socially Darwinian rat-race is boosting levels of hard-line religiosity in the lower classes. On the other hand freedom from belief in the supernatural is rising among the growing segment that enjoys higher incomes and sophisticated education. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Richard Branson and Rupert Murdoch are typical upper crust disbelievers.

The practical implications are equally breath taking. Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. It's guaranteed. That is why perceptive theists are justifiably scared. In practical terms their only practical hope is for nations to continue to suffer from socio-economic disparity, poverty and maleducation. That strategy is, of course, neither credible nor desirable. And that is why the secular community should be more encouraged.


Skepticism of the transcendent has not swept the planet with the completeness expected by some in the 20th century. Doing so would have required the conversion to atheism of an unattainable 50 million people a year in a world where the great majority chronically lack the high level of science-oriented education, secure prosperity, and democracy that spontaneous disbelief depends upon. The expectation of global atheism was correspondingly naïve, and will remain so as billions live in, or fear living in, substandard conditions. Which should not comfort theists. Even so, theists are equally naïve when they dream that faith can retake the entire world.

Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief, or faced a hazard as powerful as that posed by modernity. How is organized religion going to regain the true, choice-based initiative when only one of them is growing, and it is doing so with reproductive activity rather than by convincing the masses to join in, when no major faith is proving able to grow as they break out of their ancestral lands via mass conversion, and when securely prosperous democracies appear immune to mass devotion? The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century.

Even though liberal, pro-evolution religions are not at fault for unacceptable social policies, organized faith cannot reform itself by supporting successful secular social arrangements because these actions inadvertently suppress popular religiosity. They are caught in a classic Catch-22. And liberal churches are even less able to thrive in advanced democracies than are their more conservative counterparts, so if churches, temples and mosques become matriarchal by socio-politically liberalizing they risk secularizing themselves into further insignificance.

In Commonweal Peter Quinn contends that Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris have sanitized the social philosophy of Charles Darwin, which was not sufficiently kindly and tolerant to produce "the sole and true foundation for a humanistic society, free of the primitive and dangerous irrationality of religious belief."

Aside from the above nontheists never having promoted Darwin's personal world-view as the sole fountain of societal goodness, Quinn is making the even bigger mistake—the same mistake nearly everyone is making—of believing that the contest between popular faith and secularism is an epic struggle of ideas that then determines the quality of societies. But the level and nature of popular faith is really set by economic conditions, and only secular egalitarian prosperous democracies that reject extreme social Darwinism can produce the best practical conditions.

Assuming America continues to secularize towards the 1st world norm then what can we expect? The decline in faith-based conservative ideology is predicted to allow the country to adopt the progressive policies that have been proven to work in the rest of the west, and vice-versa. Even Wal-Mart has come out in favor of universal medical coverage as bottom-line busting health care expenditures compel the corporations to turn towards the system that has done so much harm to the churches of Europe. If and when religion declines in the states Darwin's science will automatically benefit enormously as it has in ungodly Europe, but Darwinistic social policies will not fare as well as they have in Christian America.

In the end what humanity chooses to believe will be more a matter of economics than of debate, deliberately considered choice, or reproduction. The more national societies that provide financial and physical security to the population, the fewer that will be religiously devout. The more that cannot provide their citizens with these high standards the more that will hope that supernatural forces will alleviate their anxieties. It is probable that there is little that can be done by either side to alter this fundamental pattern.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post May 03, 2007, 12:28 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



Worms haven't done too badly and neither any Society nor any God looks after them!
Good conclusions, however for man and woman.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 03, 2007, 12:48 PM
Post #3


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



As one who is not an atheist, I abhor negative approaches. Therefore, I question the claims of all forms of theism, including the many polytheisms and the several monotheisms. I include myself among those who are happy to second the thesis of this thread.

Did I get that right? I hope I have. If not, I will correct it, later.

Culture, give us a summary of your thesis, please.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 03, 2007, 12:54 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



I am also reluctant to refer to myself as an atheist, preferring the term humanist.




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Culture
post May 04, 2007, 02:51 AM
Post #5


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 03, 2007, 12:48 PM) *

As one who is not an atheist--I abhor negative approaches--has questioned the claims of all forms of theism, including the many polytheisms and the several monotheisms, for decades--I include myself among those who happy to second the thesis of this thread.

Did I get that right? I hope I have. If not, I will correct it, later.

Culture, give us a summary of your thesis, please.


Just an interesting thread. Interesting that as economics, education and technology gains momentum, faith/belief start plummeting. Of course the article does not venture to propose WHY this is so, but I am sure there is to be a follow up on this.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 04, 2007, 06:53 PM
Post #6


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Did you hear about ATHEISM INC? It is registered as a not-for-prophets corporation. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lcsglvr
post May 12, 2007, 05:29 AM
Post #7


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Feb 05, 2007
Member No.: 7523



Has anyone read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? I'm 3/4 done with it; it's a good book. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in religion (for, against or indifferent).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post May 12, 2007, 04:12 PM
Post #8


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



QUOTE(Rick @ May 03, 2007, 04:07 PM) *

Please put it back the way it was. Abuse of moderator authority is grounds for its removal.


Whose been abusing their mod powers Rick?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 12, 2007, 09:23 PM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Max, I Confess: I confess, it was me. However, I hope I have made things right, now that I have discovered how this system works.
=================================================
BTW, how many have heard of the work of Professor Anthony Flew?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Apparently, once a non-believer, he now does think there is clear evidence for God, deistically speaking.

Perhaps the problem is one of definition. In another forum I wrote: Naturally, I agree with Flew, to a point. However, IMHO, I offer the following theory (that is, god-given idea) and definition of G0D, in microcosm, and GOD, in macrocosm, and compare it with God:

God and GOD
There is a difference between God and GOD. Belief in God requires faith. But GOD can be understood through experience, reason and patient research.

Let us compare the two:
====================
HERE IS HOW I UNDERSTAND THE GOD OF THEISM.
I AM NOT A THEIST, I AM A UNITHEIST
=============================================
The God of theism requires that we, his creatures,
have an unquestioning faith in Him and everything he
chooses to reveal to us. We are here to find out what
His will is and to do it--obviously a male-like
heavenly father and a superior being, who preceded the
universe, which He created out of nothing. He
demands that we worship and obey him on pain
of death and eternal damnation. If you are a Jew
or a Christian, He is the is the author of the Bible,
which is his Word.

According to the Bible, not long after the creation
the earth and animal life, He created man, Adam.
Then he created woman, Eve--out of man. Eve
sinned and led Adam to sin. This led to the fall of
all humanity. In his anger God destroyed all
humanity in a flood and saved only the family of
Noah. From that point on, the descendants of
Noah kept waiting for a Messiah who would l
lead them back to the garden of Eden.

If you are a certain kind of Christian, you believe
that the Messiah finally came in the form of Jesus,
the one and only son of God, to begin the salvation
of the world. About 2000 years ago, the Jews and
others, who believed this, became Christians and
made the attempt, which failed, to set up the
Kingdom of God on earth.

Modern Jews--the descendants of those who
refused to accept Jesus as The Messiah--are
still waiting for the Messiah.

Meanwhile, Christians are waiting for Jesus to
return and finish the work of salvation. Jews and
Christians think of God as Lord and Master.
He is to be worshiped and obeyed, without question.
And here we are.

Muslims, on the other hand, while they accept
much--though not all--of the basic story of the Bible,
have added the Koran, to correct the mistakes
in Bible, and as the final revelation from God.

====================================================================
I OFFER THE FOLLOWING IDEAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DOGMA AS A KIND OF APPROACH TO WHAT RICHARD DAWKINS CALLS THE GOD-HYPOTHESIS. IT IS A NEW VISION OF GOD, OR MY FAVOURITE TERM, UNITHEISM http://www.unitheist.org
====================================================================
GOD, on the other hand, IMHO, is not the same as the God of theism. GOD is in and through, and at one with the cosmos--in full at-one-ment, spoken of by Jesus and his male and female disciples, including the Prophets. They, by their lives of service, did become one with GOD and paved the way for us.

That is, GOD is one with all creation as we are experiencing and exploring it, with the help of the sciences, in the now. GOD and the cosmos is all that is, always was, and always will be.

We are here, in cooperation with GOD, to create and perfect ourselves. GOD, as faith, hope, love, goodness, order, discipline and design in the cosmos, and personal in us, is here to help, not to be a dominating master. As Jesus put it in Luke, I am "among you as one who serves". In Jogn
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post May 13, 2007, 12:29 PM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Just in case anyone hasn't heard this before (wink.gif), there isn't any evidence for god(s), or, in a similar category, for fairies at the bottom of anyone's garden. But there is evidence that hallucinations (auditory, visual etc) and delusion occur. Is this telling us anything? Why would anyone need faith? Surely we have the universe. Isn't that enough for our wonderlust? Step out of the pulpits and look at the sky.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post May 13, 2007, 01:32 PM
Post #11


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
I OFFER THE FOLLOWING IDEAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DOGMA


I think God has made available the entire range of infinity without any conditions at all and yet God won't look to exemplify his social preferences or self proclaimed point of reference so that he will be measured against another in any individual ability to perceive reality.

I think he/she/it has gotten over the need for self gratification and recognition.

I also think those who pave the way for others offer an empty plate so that we may fill it with our own divinity rather than take someone elses path and interpretations as our own without earning it.

User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 13, 2007, 05:18 PM
Post #12


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



HH comments:
QUOTE
Step out of the pulpits and look at the sky.
I agree, and I do, now that I am re-directed. Thanks for the reminder!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post May 14, 2007, 04:36 AM
Post #13


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 14, 2007, 02:18 AM) *
HH comments:
QUOTE
Step out of the pulpits and look at the sky.
I agree, and I do, now that I am re-directed. Thanks for the reminder!
I know that you and many others do, hence the continuing worthwhile discussion here on BrainMeta. Incidentally, I am lucky enough to live in a location with a wonderful view of the night sky. I haven't seen any UFOs but I see shooting stars almost every cloudness night. When my sons were younger, we used to walk around the village each night to see who would first spot a shooting star. I can't ever remember being let down when nights were clear. I used to tell them it was good exercise, good astronomical training, good for the imagination and a good way to have a cigar without their mum moaning about the stink! I stopped smoking when they grew up!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 14, 2007, 11:46 AM
Post #14


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 12, 2007, 05:12 PM) *

QUOTE(Rick @ May 03, 2007, 04:07 PM) *

Please put it back the way it was. Abuse of moderator authority is grounds for its removal.


Whose been abusing their mod powers Rick?

I have forgotten which one it was. My post has been restored to its original form and the related posts were removed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 14, 2007, 11:50 AM
Post #15


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(lcsglvr @ May 12, 2007, 06:29 AM) *

Has anyone read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? I'm 3/4 done with it; it's a good book. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in religion (for, against or indifferent).

I read it back in December '06. Very good. I recommend it to everyone and especially to anyone who has been taken in (hoodwinked) by religion.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post May 14, 2007, 01:13 PM
Post #16


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Get the audio version. Then you can read Robert Winston's "The Story of God" at the same time!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 14, 2007, 06:50 PM
Post #17


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Rick @ May 14, 2007, 11:50 AM) *

QUOTE(lcsglvr @ May 12, 2007, 06:29 AM) *

Has anyone read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? I'm 3/4 done with it; it's a good book. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in religion (for, against or indifferent).

I read it back in December '06. Very good. I recommend it to everyone and especially to anyone who has been taken in (hoodwinked) by religion.
Of course people have never been taken in by those who have used science for immoral and evil purposes; they were simply blown to bits (liquidated) smile.gif. However, thank GØD, unlike those who sent them to their deaths, those who lived a moral, ethical, useful, loving and religious life did not die without hope.

IMHO, all things, including religion and science, can be used for evil purposes. And I agree: The use of religion and science for evil purposes is, perhaps, the highest evil of all.

I wonder: Why some people of great intellect, from all walks of life, find it so difficult to avoid the evil of generalizing?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 14, 2007, 07:47 PM
Post #18


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Maybe there a Dog, after all:
http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&dis...126dcacdc223ac1
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post May 14, 2007, 08:26 PM
Post #19


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
GØD is one with all creation as we are experiencing and exploring it, with the help of the sciences, in the now. GØD and the cosmos is all that is, always was, and always will be.

We are here, in cooperation with GØD, to create and perfect ourselves. .......


IMHO, all things, including religion and science, can be used for evil purposes. And I agree: The use of religion and science for evil purposes is, perhaps, the highest evil of all.


Interesting how the presence of God in some things is evil, and in others not.



QUOTE
I wonder: Why some people of great intellect, from all walks of life, find it so difficult to avoid the evil of generalizing?

Probably because they know not of what they speak.
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 15, 2007, 10:21 AM
Post #20


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Generalizing is not evil, generally. Generalizing, properly done, is a form of intelligence. Generalization is inductive reasoning, going from specific instances to general rules.

In general, the term "God" (or however you want to spell it) evokes a notion of monotheism in Western society. As you know, I think this conceptualization is wrong and misleading. To the extent that a wrong notion of a monotheistic god distracts people from reality, it does harm. Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature." It simplifies language (which is good) and eliminates a source of misunderstanding (at best) or deception, which is also good.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 15, 2007, 10:50 AM
Post #21


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Rick
QUOTE
Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature."
Because, IMHO, GØD is that which includes all of nature--the known and the unknown--and interpenetrates all natural things and natural processes, naturally, I will use it.

Rick, as I have said before: Many concepts have doublets. I have no objection ro anyone using Nature as a doublet for GØD. However, I believe it needs to be capitalized. I agree with you when you say that, generally speaking, God equals monotheism--a personal being separate and apart from Nature, and from humanity, as a whole.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post May 15, 2007, 11:56 AM
Post #22


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE
Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature."


Hehe, and many philosophers prefer the term "reality".

God, nature, reality - they all mean nothing without their terms being defined. Still, I'd tend to agree with Rick that I fail to see the need to use a term such as God, which has SO much cultural baggage, when there are much more neutral terms which could convey the same message.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post May 15, 2007, 12:14 PM
Post #23


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Technologist @ May 15, 2007, 08:56 PM) *
when there are much more neutral terms which could convey the same message.
That is ..... ?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 15, 2007, 02:25 PM
Post #24


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Technologist @ May 15, 2007, 11:56 AM) *

QUOTE
Therefore, we can accomplish a double good by banishing the term from our discourse in favor of the term "nature."


Hehe, and many philosophers prefer the term "reality".

God, nature, reality - they all mean nothing without their terms being defined. Still, I'd tend to agree with Rick that I fail to see the need to use a term such as God, which has SO much cultural baggage, when there are much more neutral terms which could convey the same message.
Tech, For those who have been paying attention, smile.gif I do not use the term God.
I use the term GØD, a doublet for Nature. Comprendez vous?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 15, 2007, 02:33 PM
Post #25


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



It would seem to be pronounced in a similar manner to the more common term, or do you pronounce it "nature"?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post May 15, 2007, 02:57 PM
Post #26


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



LOL

Here is a quote from an internet exchange (that wasn't on the subject of God) which explains better the point I am trying to make regarding semantics.

QUOTE
2. To appreciate this point, consider this analogy: people are arguing about whether ZERODOME exists (you can substitute the non-sensical word of your choice). The existence of ZERODOME is very contentious. People have been arguing for millennia. People have been put to death because of the belief in ZERODOME; others have been spared the death penalty because people doubted whether ZERODOME exists. One group says: ZERODOME is the Loch Ness monster. This makes sense, because people have argued about whether the Loch Ness monster exists. Sure, only one of the Loch Ness believers, or the Loch Ness doubters, can be right at the end of the day. But at least they were arguing. Another group, however, says ZERODOME is the city of London. But this is strange. It was extremely contentious that ZERODOME exists, yet it is not extremely contentious that London exists. In fact, it’s not contentious at all. So it would be very strange if ZERODOME and London were the same thing. That analysis doesn’t seem to capture the controversial element of whatever ZERODOME was supposed to be. Yet this is precisely what the London group says: ZERODOME is something that nobody would ever doubt exists. So a newcomer, trying to decide whether ZERODOME means the Loch Ness monster or London, might feel inclined towards believing it means the Loch Ness monster.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 15, 2007, 03:23 PM
Post #27


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



I think that Lindsay agrees that the monotheistic god, as commonly conceived in the popular religions, does not exist. My minor quarrel is in what I believe to be a poor choice of terminology.

Another small quarrel is in the question of the existence of any divinity at all in nature. I cannot seem to pin down how a universe devoid of divinity would be any different than the universe we know. Therefore, postulating divinity in our universe seems to add no explanatory power.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 15, 2007, 03:56 PM
Post #28


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Rick @ May 15, 2007, 03:23 PM) *

I think that Lindsay agrees that the monotheistic god, as commonly conceived in the popular religions, does not exist.
I agree. God does not exist. If He does, I expect HIM to speak up, okay?

Allow me to check: God, are you there? If you exist as a person, who and where are you? Tell us, we are all ears. Waiting.

{ } God, I invite you to fill in the { }--a mathematical doublet for Ø.
=====================================================
Rick comments: "My minor quarrel is in what I believe to be a poor choice of terminology."

In the spirit of dialogue, I ask you: Rick, what, for you, is the best choice of terminiolgy?

Rick, then you comment:
"Another small quarrel is in the question of the existence of any divinity at all in nature.

I cannot seem to pin down how a universe devoid of divinity would be any different than the universe we know."

Rick, I respect that there is a universe I know. However, I feel that there is, and always will be, a universe which is more than I can know. This is what I call GØD.

Rick comments, "Therefore, postulating divinity in our universe seems to add no explanatory power."

Rick, I ask: Explanatory power for what?

What do you call that which seems to be beyond space and time, as we experience it using the sciences?

BTW, I reserve the right ot revise what I have just written, smile.gif okay?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post May 15, 2007, 05:53 PM
Post #29


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE
Rick, I respect that there is a universe I know. However, I feel that there is, and always will be, a universe which is more than I can know. This is what I call GØD.


Indeed. Lindsay, from when I interacted with you a while back I remember that you considered youself a process philosopher who identified with the metaphysics of Alfred Whitehead. My philosophizing is also based on the concept of *process*.

Because to do otherwise is an utterly futile endeavor, I choose to believe that there is a real world external to my cognition. I call this real world *reality* and also recognize the fact that despite my best efforts to optimize my cognition, there will always be mysteries that lie beyond my level of understanding. This state of affairs I consider to be a necessary "condition of Being". The moment of *surprise* is when, to some extent, mystery is overcome. I call this occurrence "mind-reality coalescence" and it is my primary value - my reason for Being.

I believe a fair amount of the cognitive dissonance which is present in contemporary naturalistic philosophy comes from a misconceptualization of goal states as being static rather than dynamic. Eliminating all mystery, just like become reality itself, is an impossibility. Yet being idealistic and craving the elimination of all mystery is precisely what defines most contemporary naturalists. This desire clouds their better judgement and results in premature declarations of victory (ie, wishful thinking) in such speculative areas of inquiry as consciousness (eg, Dennett's Quining Qualia).

In contrast, I am perfectly at ease with the presence of mystery. Yes, it is something to be over come, but it is also something without which I would cease to have purpose.

Unlike a mysterian, I do not worship mystery - nor do I worship reality - but I do stand in awe of their majestic beauty.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post May 15, 2007, 07:07 PM
Post #30


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Technologist writes: "Unlike a mysterian, I do not worship mystery - nor do I worship reality - but I do stand in awe of their majestic beauty."

Sounds "awe.....full" to me. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2017 - 07:56 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles