 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Living Forever >
Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0384.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
Do modern intellectuals actually believe that religious believers are naively deluded? Or could they be missing something themselves? David Gelernter responds to Edge publisher/editor John Brockman's request to futurists to pose "hard-edge" questions that "render visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefine who and what we are."
Originally published January 2002 at Edge. Published on KurzweilAI.net January 21, 2002. Read Ray Kurzweil's Edge question here.
Is it just a matter of IQ? (Though I thought intellectuals no longer believed in IQ...) But empirically it can't be an IQ issue, because so many of history's greatest minds based their lives on religion -- from Michaelangelo or Bach to Spinoza or Dante or Kant. Do modern intellectuals actually believe that all such people are naively deluded? Or could they be missing something themselves?
Copyright © 2002 by Edge Foundation, Inc.
www.edge.org
| | Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X! | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
 |
|
First, the question is biased. It simply hasn't been demonstrated that religion is less important to intellectuals.
Unless, of course, we define "intellectuals" along lines that pre-determine the outcome of this question. Certainly, since the 18th century, the most publicly-recognized "intellectuals" have tended to be irreligious. Rousseau, Marx, Shelley, Brecht, Ibsen, Russell, etc. all set a template for the modern press-garnering secular intellectual. In fact, this template has become so ingrained that the words "secular intellectual" suggest a redundancy. But that's a result of media fashion, not reality.
(Ironically, one need only look at the number of religious believers in different arenas of academia today to learn an important lesson. In the social sciences, you'll find virtually none. But stroll over to the buildings housing the hard sciences and engineering, and you're likely to run into a good deal more. The fact is, the more legitimate the "science", the more likely it is to be habited by the religious. This is not to say the hard sciences are exclusively theist, by any means -- but that the term "intellectual", by fashionable definition in the social sciences, has come to be applied only to those who don't believe in God.)
More interesting though, I think: The proposition that religion isn't *important*, even to non-believing public intellectuals, would be highly misleading. One can see religion -- even if manifested in anti-religious fervor -- animating the works of many of the publicly recognized intellectuals of the last two hundred years. In fact, it wouldn't be misleading to say that many of them were positively consumed with religion, judging merely by the force of their attempts to eradicate or mock it.
It's not just important to them, it permeates their lives' work.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Actually, statistics tend to be the reverse. Religion is very common in social sciences, psychology etc. Physics, chemistry etc. have much lower rates of religion (and it has been this way for the past century at least). And among those scientists that have a religion, it tends to be a social function, not a core belief.
The core reason is likely due to the nature of science, the success of the past couple of centuries has come about because science holds ideas up to test (including scientific theories) and keeps weeding out those that don't hold up. Religion doesn't fare any better than other mythologies in this climate.
Interestingly, the difference in tech but non-science fields such as engineering, comp sci, etc seems to be accounted for by the nature of the discipline. You don't generally question or challenge ideas in engineering, engineers often have no real understanding of skepticism or scientific method. Engineers, unlike biologists or physicists, can stay far away from anything that actually challenges religious belief.
jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Which regime best meets your needs, Faith or Proof?
Let's draw a line in the sand. On one side we place those individuals with a bachelor degree or greater and label them intellectuals. On the other side we place all others and label them average. Let's acknowledge and disregard the exceptions that do exist on both sides of that line. What I have observed in all religions, whether it be Christianity, Islamic, Hindu or whatever; is that belief in a book of stories written centuries ago is required and the degree of faith drives the degree of commitment. Fundamentally, all religions say the same thing, be a good human and believe in the writings and you will evolve to a greater plane of existence after your death. Therefore, I believe it is this promise of a better life after death that drives the average person to a religion. I also believe that social pressures in a culture or community contributes to the reinforcement of a religion on the average person. The latent significance is that the average person is not likely to stand up against the masses and will simply conform to the rule. An average person may therefore find their identity and self-worth in this faith based regime.
The intellectual, on the other hand, may find it difficult to accept the promise of a better life after death and that the writings are exaggerations of events in history that may have been distorted over the years of story telling and transcription. No matter what the pretense, to believe requires faith and that cuts across the grain of the very substance of an intellectual. It is the nature and training of an intellectual to challenge their beliefs or the prevailing belief whether it be in quantum physics, genetics, astrophysics, mathematics or whatever their field of practice. Although the word faith may be used or felt when seeking project funding. The intellectual knows that they don't advance science or any technical field by preaching to their colleagues for them to have faith in their research results. Constructs of the physical world are always getting challenged and the intellectual expects as much and the advancement of science demands as much. There is no worth for the concept of faith in the intellectual world and this may be why all religions are considered trivial by the intellectual. Consequently, the intellectual may find their identity and self-worth in a proof based regime.
The distinction I draw between an agnostic individual and an atheist is that the agnostic person may ponder questions like what or who initiated the big bang that created the universe where the agnostic person may ponder how did nature cause the big bang to begin.
When an individual makes a determination as to whether they function in a faith based regime or a proof based regime is normally ascertained from normal day-to-day events. However, to truly test the proof based regime one has to experience an extreme and extended life or death situation. If, during your period of intense fear, you lend thoughts to a higher being to save you from your situation, then it would suggest that your core may function in a faith based regime even though you consciously believe you function in a proof based regime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Culture is mold; let the strongest one survive; no that is correct or anything; but, might is right; or shall I take the "circular", ontological reason that a god must exist, because everything exists. Let us be reasonable. Yes, I believe in humanism, because I know humans to exist. I believe in reason no matter how faiths tend to twist and distort them for their own purposes. Also, remember the 'Crusades', the 'Witch burnings', 'holywars', hate crimes perpetrated in the name of religion I think the philosopher Immanuel Kant stated appropriately when he stated that if a system is not universal, then it can be no good. And, do not tell me that the ends justify the means, that he moves in mysterious ways; this is vulgar mysticism; I might as well play with a deck of Tarot Cards, then at least the dark side of my subconscious, Jung's collective unconscious will be just as dark. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
This is pure bull corn: "try reading the Bible, it's prophecies have never and will never fail." The exact reverse is true. The prophecies are so vauge that you can relate them to anything. Religion was born when man had no answers to any questions. It is the biggest lie in the world! Ask yourself if God has ever really talked to you. Do you really believe that he has talked to any man? I don't believe it at all. If no man has directly communicated with God, then every word written or spoken about God is wrong!!! It is all made up. I understand why so many want to make it true, its very hard to face reality. I started searching for god when I was 8 years old and I was 45 when I figured it out. I read the bible constantly and every book about religion I could get my hands on. I also read and learned about Science. Religion says we must have faith and believe in something we can't see, touch, smell, hear, show proof of or talk to! Science says, here is what we understand, what we don't understand, what needs to be understood and the logical path that has led us to what we understand. Religion is based on lies, Science is based on facts. How could anyone with a logical mind find any truth in religion? If you study the history of the Bible you can easilly see where the words in the bible have been twisted to suit whatever beliefs were popular at the time of it's publication. I feel sorry for all those that have waisted their whole lives praying and believing every day, only to have the machine that is the brain quit working the minute you die. The waste, all that time could have been used to find the truth and help in the quest to find a physical scientific way to stop death from being the end!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is religion so important ... and so trivial ...
|
|
|
|
The post above, by "wildcat", demonstrates to me the amazing parity between the "religious/spiritual" motif and the "scientific/material" motif.
Details of their methods differ, but both have similar engagements.
Each feels very strongly in the "time-passes" concept, and that "now" is not nearly as important as "later", when it will all "really matter".
As such, getting safely to "later" is critically important.
The religious and the scientific do not mean each other harm, really. Each has a path-to-the-(wonderful)-later, and wants to "save" the other, so they will be able to enjoy this "later" too.
But each is somehow threatened by the other's version of method, and perhaps as well, the very form of "later". Clearly, there can be only one "later", so one side must be "right".
Some folks are of a non-technical persuasion, thus a "just believe in Him" path to the "later" is most appealing. The "later" need not be engineered, it will be eternal because the believe it to be so.
For techical-engineering types, the path must be constructed, and the "later" forged. This is a lot more technical work, and yet appeals to the technical, who enjoy that sort of thing.
Both "laters" have their problems, though.
In the spiritual "later", I might want to carry on endless conversations about X, with soul Y. Unfortunately, soul Y wants to spend eternity speaking with soul Z, and cannot abide the topic of X. Either I am eternally unhappy, or I change from a "me-awareness" into a foreign "non-me-awareness", where everything "jives" (but then, what is the point? Why not let someone else go in my place? I don't get it.)
And if I believe-wrong, I may spend eternity in some bad place, suffer forever, to teach me a lesson I won't forget.
In the techno-later, I will (ostensibly) simulate my environment, to make it whatever pleases me or makes me feel (happy, productive, challenged, fill-in-the-blank). I the people I want to share my time with do not want to share it with me, we can have conversations with simulated other, who always enjoy my company and laugh at my jokes. If I begin to spiral into madness, the "sysop" will rescue me, fix my head, and turn me into the real-me-not-me again.
But if the heat-death of the universe causes the techno-substrate to disintegrate (billions of years hence, but might feel a lot sooner), perhaps I will endure an endless torture worse than any envisioned by Dante, struggling and (who knows) unable to even effectively take my own life/non-life to end the suffering.
Such are the guarantees provided.
Later.
____tony____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
by science, what do you connotate? science has no say on things like origins. science is observation, repetition, and experimentation. You cant prove religion scientifically, nor can you prove many other things like evolution, for instance, because evolution is a religion. it's based on theory and sadly cannot be proven because its not repeatable, not experimentable, and not observable unless you live to be 5000000 years old.
so, you can't prove either. it's a faith thing. also, what is your basis for all these "miraculous" thruths you've stumbled upon. if your basis is your own experiences, then they are not valid. my experience is just as valid as yours if you have no basis for your "facts".
please tell me all your sources so that I might check them for science's sake. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
First off, I don't like the word "religion" as it is used by most people. What I believe relates to no "system" of men who boss certain sections of the human race around. I believe that there is a God who orders the universe because of the law of entropy. According to proven scientific fact, things aren't getting better. If there is an "evolution" out there, it is from order to disorder. Beside the above point, I'd like to say that all worldviews depend on faith. I can't prove to you God's existence, despite what you've heard from other so-called "christians", nor can you prove to me your worldview is absolutely correct, either. If we try to prove our worldviews, we venture into the unstable area of emotional argument. I can say this, though. The popular view of the "big bang" and man's ascension into greater complexy of mind and body is so unproven that "religion" as you put it is a very much more valid alternative.
Simply put, it takes faith to believe anything. But I know even the the moronic statement, "There is no such thing as absolutes!" can be disproven with the simple quip, "Are you sure?" Think about that one, people.
signed, tyler(a 17 year old guy that looks at facts and takes a few leaps of faith like we all do)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Religion is a limited set of statements and practices related to a presumably transcendent phenomenon. Intellectuals can approach this body of material either by creating more, apologizing for what is there, or rejecting it as inconsistent and incomplete even without looking at the behavior of those who profess to practice it.
If on the other hand, one looks at religion as a perception of humanity, much repeated, of something beyond one's self and the admittedly inadequate effort to codify that (at apparently great compromise), then the underlying perception (which after all is all we have) is an emergent phenomena about which there is considerable agreement whether one finds more spirit in the preaching Sunday morning or the team play Sunday afternoon. This "more than the sum of the parts" is nothing new to science, its one thing life is about (more than big molecules, there is a certain dynamic).
We may not be able to tell whether it is an internal or external compass which ultimately guides humanity (one may suggest that it is collective rather than individual), the kind of compass which turned this nation against slavery and later towards civil rights. While one has trouble crediting mainstream religion with getting the ball rolling but religion was a big part and indeed most did, eventually, roll.
I am no fan of mainstream or offshoot religion, thinking that the Reformation should have rolled back to Easter and left the rest as commentary (but the research was not there then, nor the inclination), but to throw the sages out with the subsequent errors would have us eliminating all science because earlier paradigms were not correct (even if they are taught in high school).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Are intellectuals missing something
|
|
|
|
The problem is the definition of religion.
I believe there is a core phenomenon which is the basis of religious/spiritual experiences, which everyone has, and which everyone explains in different ways--coincidence being one common explanation, God being another.
That core can be seen in the major religions, but is buried under layers of dogma and organizational politics.
That core can also be seen in the internal models of the World that "non-religious" people carry in their heads.
In my own searches I spent some time on atheist and religious news groups. To my mind, there was often more of a sense of the spiritual in the atheist groups than in the religious ones.
So, are intellectuals not religious? If you really mean the spiritual core of religious belief? I'm not so sure.
The obviously very smart guys wanting to build the giant cyclotron in Texas were quite clear on their motive. They were looking for God.
And the "so trivial" topic seems to often appear in this forum, more so, than say, discussions of Gilligan's Island.
There is something there, and we're all looking for it, intellectual and moron alike. It's just that the intellectual might not be so quick to accept some organized religion's dogma-laden answer.
Like the Hell's Angels and their motorcycles (great stories and insights from Kurzweil's review of Wolfram), Wolfram and his CA, I love my own ideas circling about that spiritual core. And hope that they can clarify some of the issues of the spiritual quest and why it so hard for us humans. www.reflection-idea.com
Religion and science will come back together. And the World will be better for it.
I welcome any and all comments by e-mail or here.
Dennis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Are intellectuals missing something
|
|
|
|
My own definition of the spiritual revolves around those experiences in life that seem a little magical.
Small example - I was running out of money, looked like I was doomed to try to get a real job, and, out of the blue, a guy I knew from 10 years ago called me and offered me some free-lance writing work. The perfect opportunity just when I needed it.
No matter what your basic beliefs, an experience like that catches your attention. You tell people about it.
Now maybe you say its a lucky coincidence, or maybe you say God is looking after you, but in either case it raises your eyebrows.
It is these real-life experiences that cause people to care. The atheists angrily arguing my story is just lucky coincidence, the religious angrily saying it is God work.
These experiences are the ones Jung was exploring with his ideas on synchronicity.
These experiences are the core of Western religion. The early books of the Bible are all about a people wrestling with the question of whether they, or God was controlling their destiny. And they obviously had experiences that made them ask those questions.
Returning to some of the other threads and 'Tao of Physics' ideas, synchronicity which is one description of these human experiences, is not that far from Quantum physics, or a Wolframian cellular automata explanation of it all.
If you accept my synchronicity/mystical experience as the core of spirituality, then its not that far a leap to see that maybe science and religion might join paths again after a long messy separation.
These ideas are explored more at www.reflection-idea.com.
Dennis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Are intellectuals missing something
|
|
|
|
Dennis
You just captured the essence of what I was trying to communicate. You were running out of money, and getting a "real job" was the last thing you wanted to to. Therein lies your sense of life. You seem to place a great value on being independent and creating values for yourself and others, of your own volition and by your own authority. This makes you happy, and is the purpose for living. Your disciplined efforts to accomplish your goals demonstrates your assertiveness toward living.
I would postulate that an old friend calling you "out of the blue" and the reference to magical, is mystical. In other words, you may simply be at a loss to the explain why this happened, so rather than integrating reality, you attribute the event to a magical event, out of ignorance.
At any rate, the events triggered an emothional reponse that we might call spiritual, or your sense of life combined with your assertiveness. Your diciplined efforts, small efforts performed on a daily basis, combined with persistence and patience, paid off. Don't be so quick to pass it off as the work of some magical or mystical power. Give yourself some credit man!
It is more likely that this individual called because he knew you, your sense of life, and your abilities became of value to him in solving his problems. It was probably just coincidence that he called when he did. But I think it is logical to attribute your success to your own individual efforts.
My question remains. Can artificial intellegence develop the same spirituality as human consciousness? Can a machine experience joy and happiness, of its own volition and productive efforts? Or would it simply act on the program instilled by its creator, as a tool to preserve human consciousness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Are intellectuals missing something
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the response, and your interpretation of the events. I'll happily give myself some credit.
On the other side, there was a similar story, the guy really needed a writer, and had seen some of my work since we had known each other, and was really glad to find out I was available.
A real synchronicity sort of thing. He was the answer to my work needs, I the answer to his.
But, no matter what my explanation or yours is of the story, my clain is that these are the sorts of experiences that make one wonder. And that wonder is the basis of the spiritual quest.
To answer your last question, my own suspicions are that there is a connecting force between everything, of which our senses and limited mental power can only give us glimpses.
And the inanimate is as much involved as, giving ourselves some credit, the most evolved creatures on this planet. If the purpose of human life is to build computers, so be it. (Although I might want to recant some of the harsh words I've said about mine in a Kurzweilian future.)
Again, looking to stimulate some discussion on www.reflection-idea.com. Maybe its out in la-la land, maybe its something good?
Dennis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
I think we have to remind ourselves that religious tendencies are part of our evolved psychology, some people learn this and some don't. And even those who learn this can still "truely" be religious, or just do it to satisfy their condition of being an evolved human. The fact is, is that even if intellectuals claim to be atheist or not, the question of supernatural things still pops up from time to time, whether they like it or not. Pygmies believe there world is created and supplied by the forest, in our novel environment of civilization, were is our forest? Well, we don't have one, so we invent one, and we call it our God. I think it pretty simple, and really does it matter if we flirt with our evolved psychology now and then? As long as it doesn't spoil our ability to make rational and moral decisions.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
All one has to do is look around the world and see that most human phenotypes include 'male jealosy' as do they a desire to understand their world, I am not saying there is a gene for god, but if you read the literature for functioning of the limbic system and its association with meditation and prayer, coupled with the fact that basically every known historical society having placed some resposibility of the world to a 'deity', then you have some evidence for this idea. I think it would be dumb to exclude religion out of the normal human psychological condition, because it clearly is there, whether we scientific atheists like it or not. Now, it may be more of a 'technology' like music, in the way that our genotyped has had increased fitness as a consequence of increased knowledge of our environment, a big part our social environment, so the religous outcropping may be a technological extension of the 'feel-good-limbic', I know that area of the woods now, but in todays world we know much much more, and the unknown, and the responsiblities of the 'gods' has been pushed back in logical and read person's mind to that of simple existence, if even that.
Its hard for me to formulate this is such a small newletter forum, it would take at least a chapter to incorporate the right references and baises for this idea, but I am not lifting it with a sky hook.
Joe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science and Supernatural
|
|
|
|
It has been proved by the scientific researches that by practicing certain exercises and personal efforts, man can arouse the supernatural abilities. Keeping in view the advancement in the fields of telepathy and hypnotism by the European countries and particularly by the former U.S.S.R; if the worshipping rituals and ascetic exercises are considered to be the only means of acquiring the Metaphysical Sciences, it amounts to belittling the subject because the nations which have altogether no faith and belief in religions have excelled considerably in their achievements regarding the Metaphysical Sciences
One thing which is frequently mentioned in Spiritualism is the Conducting 1nfluence, that is, the teacher; Shaikh, preceptor or the, 'Guru' inducts certain spiritual changes by focusing his attention in his pupil, disciple or the spiritual son. Today a scientist can also do the same. He can also influence the desired people telepathically and can force them to do a particular job, which he intends them to do. A term commonly used in Spiritualism is 'To See in the Inner' that is, to observe the outer space of this planet through the Inner Eye. This also has been done by the scientists successfully and they have their claim of walking in space to their credit.
Man possesses certain abilities which if activated enables him to disclose those informations which are not found in the books. Science has established its advancement in this regard as well and knowledges which were initially hard to believe and beyond the comprehension of the human intellect have been discovered and as a result those things have come into existence which has forced man to believe them. In such circumstances the terms of Spiritualism, like Attention, Influence, Opening of the Inner Eye, emancipation from Time and Space have become a perplexing puzzle. Till date it is believed that the paranormal abilities of foresightedness and clairvoyance etc. can only be activated through the recitation of certain verses and repetition of certain words. It has become very important to understand, in the present era of science, that if the people who do not have faith in any religion, can Conduct the Influence, can activate their Inner Eye to function, can lay the foundations of ever new sciences, can walk in Space, then what is this Spiritualism?
Religion is bound to come under discussion when we talk of Spiritualism. The principle on which the religions have been founded is that performance of the religions duties should enable man to bring a change in his own life or to enable him to Conduct Influence in the lives of other, the things hidden within the earth or in the outer sphere of the earth may appear before his Inner Eye. But when we study the lives of the followers of the religions we hardly find a single person, in the multitude of millions and billions of religious people who can exercise the power of Conductive Influence and his Inner Sight is operative. It is quite astonishing that the religious people are ignorant of the knowledges, which have been discovered by the people who have no faith in religions. Naturally, in such circumstances every serious minded person would be constrained to think, (What is this religion?) (Top)
Law
There are countless species in the universe. Each and every species and every individual of every species in their individual capacity is in constant and continuous contact with one another through the waves of thought, and the Same link is the cause of introduction and intimacy between them. These waves of thoughts, in fact, arc the individual and collective informations which are responsible for bringing the individuals of the universe close to life every moment and every second. In fact our whole life is associated with the thoughts and the effectiveness of the thoughts depends upon the certitude and dubiety, belief and disbelief. This is the main point upon which the edifice of religion is founded.
Man passes through the various stages of life in small intervals of time and utilizes the fractions of time to live his life by combining and connecting these fractions' together in his mind. We either advance from one fraction of time towards the next consecutive fraction or revert back to the previous one. In order to understand this, man thinks of taking food but due to an upset stomach the intention is relinquished, how long will he abstain from it? He has no idea in this regard. Likewise thoughts are the ingredients of his life which either makes him successful or unsuccessful. An intention is formed, then is relinquished or is postponed whether with in minutes of its formation or in hours, in months or in years, anyhow it is ultimately abandoned. This abandonment or the relinquishment is the chief constituent of man's life.
There are many things like hardships, difficulties, worries, diseases, anxiety, depression etc. etc. and to equalize all these there is one thing called 'peace'', in which man seeks all types of eases and comforts. Most of them are not real but hypothetical and for man they appear to be the easy ones. This creates the trend of inclination towards the easygoing. Actually, formation of the human brain is such that it makes him go for facilities and to avoid the difficulties. These are evidently, two directions and man spends his life between these two directions through his thoughts. Every activity is motivated in one of these two directions. When we decide a plan, we were organizing it. It was perfect and complete in all its aspects and its direction was also correct but it happens that after taking only a few steps, a change takes place in our mind, with the change the direction of our thoughts also undergoes a change resulting in a net change in the direction of our activity. And the target towards which we were heading goes into oblivion. What is left with us? Groping and taking steps grippingly, This is why only one out of millions of people takes a step which is in the right direction and is not withdrawn. It may please be kept in mind that all this is about the in-between states of doubts and beliefs. So far as the majority is concerned, the main force that controls' their minds is that whim and doubt, which is ceaselessly effecting the cells of their minds. The more the intensity of doubts, the more will be the deterioration of the brain cells. It will not be out of place to mention that all the nerves of the body work under the brain cells and the activities of the nerves are the life.
Believing something is equally difficult for man as coming out of the illusions, dubiety and disbelief, For example, man presents himself contrary to what he actually is. He always hides his weaknesses and boosts about those hypothetical virtues which actually are not possessed by him.(Top)
Society and our Belief
The society in which a person is educated and reared up becomes his belief and his mind fails to analyze this belief and thus the belief become his faith although it is not more than a deceptive illusion. The main cause for this, as already stated, is that he poses himself contrary to what be actually is. This type of life causes him to face many difficulties, the difficulties which he cannot resolve. It causes, at every step, fear in him that his action would prove to be futile and would yield no result. Sometimes this doubt becomes so intense that he begins to believe that his life is facing destruction and if not destroying it is in great danger. All this happens because of the rapid deterioration of brain cells, the eventual out come of dubiety.
When life is lived contrary to that which actually it or is posed differently than what one is in fact then actions and deeds based upon this sort of life do not yield positive results. When he wants to achieve the desired results from such deeds, accelerated alterations and deterioration of brain cells changes the tracks of his practical life and either it does not yield any result or proves to be harmful or produces such a doubt which hinders and obstructs him from taking any step at all. The mental structure or the construction of the mind in fact, is in man's own control. Here 'structure' means that the rate of deterioration of the brain cells is accelerated, balanced and moderate or the minimum. It is sheer luck if some one is saved from doubt, which is because of the minimum and the least deterioration of the brain cells. The scarcity of doubt and dearth of uncertainty in the mind is directly proportional to the successes of life whereas the intensity of doubts and uncertainty has its direct proportionality with the failures of life.(Top)
Deterioration of the Brain Cells
It is unfortunate on man's part that he evaluates the Knowledges granted to him by God, on the basis of self-made and false principles and refuses to acknowledge them as such. Light has been declared by God as the basis of each and every Knowledge. Man was required to explore the maximum types and kinds of lights and their functions but he never paid proper attention to this and this thing always remained in obscurity. Man didn't try to lift this veil because either such a veil never existed for him or he never paid any attention to it. He never attempted to explore rules and principles governing the composition of lights. If this approach had been adopted by him the deterioration of the brain cells would not have been the minimum and he would have advanced towards the belief and the doubts would not have bothered him as much as they are troubling him now. The hindrances and obstructions in his practical activities would have also been minimum but it didn't happen so, he didn't explore the types of lights nor did he try to discover the nature of the lights.
He even doesn't know that lights also have their specific structural formations, natures and they even have the trends and tendencies of particular characteristics. He also doesn't know that the very lights are his life and they protect him as well. He is only familiar with the effigy of the clay and dust which doesn't posses any life of its own. The effigy made from the rotten clay by God has no reality of its own. The reality is that which has been breathed in him by God in the form of the Soul. Ignorance from the actions of the lights causes aversion from the saying of God in this regard. The more the aversion the more increased will be the doubts and whims and faith and belief would also be shattered accordingly. The spiritualists define faith as a belief in which there is no doubt. Actual cause of weakness in determination or that of faith is this doubt As long as reluctance and hesitation in thoughts is there firmness of the faith is not possible. A thought after acquiring the lights of faith and firm belief becomes a manifestation or the phenomenon.(Top)
The Religion
Religion causes us to enter into that pattern of faith and belief where no doubt or whim exists and man observes the Unseen World and the angels actively participating in the affairs of the Unseen World through his Inner Eye. Observations of the Unseen World establishes such a relationship of man with his Lord which enables him to see that the Attributes of the Creator are encompassing him. If the Inner Sight of a person is not functional, then according to Spiritualism, he has yet to enter the circle of faith. When someone enters into the circle of faith the evilness and the destructiveness take their leave from his thoughts and faith; if the Unseen World is not revealed upon a person he will always remain suppressed by evilness and destructiveness. This is the reason that despite all the comforts and facilities at his disposal, the endless new inventions and discoveries, everybody is suffering from anxiety, worries, restlessness and feelings of insecurity. Since science believes in matter and the matter is only fiction and unstable therefore all the means and resources of comforts and luxuries, every invention and all the progress and advancement of science is also temporary and perishable. How can something based upon deterioration and perishability provide real pleasure. The basic and fundamental difference between Religion and Infidelity is that the latter causes whims, doubts and uncertainty whereas religion associates all the feelings, thoughts, concepts, deeds and activities of life with the only One, Endogenous and Permanent Being.(Top)
The Scientific Doctrine
The material doctrine, preached and advocated by the scientists is that nothing could be acknowledged unless it has not been practically demonstrated. They, despite all the knowledge, which is possessed by them, forget that by limiting themselves in a material shell they are negating their own theory. It is also said by them that anything which is unseen by the sight has no reality whereas the basis of all their progress and advancement are the invisible waves of light
The founder of the Qalander Conscious, proclaimer of the Reality, Hassan Ukhra Mohammed Azeem Burkhiya, Qalander Baba Auliya states.
"In all the sciences concerning the spiritual values considered so far, the universe which is a significant manifestation is of secondary importance. First the Hidden and the Unseen are considered and their understanding is attempted with a preference. If the Hidden and the Unseen are easily understood then gradually it becomes clear as to how these manifestations and phenomena come into being and what rules and laws are responsible to create and regulate them. Ali these things are ostensibly felt just like the many experiences which prior to maturity have a certain correlation and harmony in them. All those things which are related to the Unseen have been mentioned under various names in the Holy Quran by God and the prophets by mentioning those names, elucidated their characteristics, virtues and merits for the people. The Books and Scriptures before the Holy Quran also throw light on those things but only casual references are found there, more elaborate details in this regard are found in the Holy Quran only. When the details given by the Holy Quran are considered and deliberated upon, it would be concluded that the Unseen is more important than the manifestations and the phenomena. Comprehension and understanding of the Unseen is very important. That which is called religion is also based upon the Unseen. The manifestations are mentioned in the religions but they are always given secondary importance. No matter how much preference is ascribed to them by the material world it never had a primary significance in any era of any religion. Now the material world has also gradually begun to think in the same terms. For instance, the scientists of the present age have been forced to prefer the Unseen. First they suppose something and then they Strive to draw the conclusions and results. When they are concluding something they consider all their suppositions as real, indispensable and certain. For instance, the characteristics and behavior of the electron is under heated debates in this century, All the scientists unanimously agree that it behaves like a particle and as a wave simultaneously. It is interesting to note that a thing which is only hypothetical is behaving in two ways at the same time and its behavior is acknowledged as sure and certain. It is also said, besides this, that electron has not been seen till date nor there is any such hope even in the future. But despite all this the electron is acknowledged as one of the most concrete reality which has ever been perceived by the human mind, or would ever come to man's knowledge. It is only a supposition in their minds which has been followed and the result of their pursuit is such a conclusion which is of great significance for inventions and discoveries and is considered an important stage of success.
They are striving hard to introduce this important stage to the people, Many times it happens that things once believed to be factual and real are rejected and replaced by new facts, discoveries and formulae. And these new substituted facts and formulae are considered worthy of the same importance which was once reserved for the rejected ones. Obviously the unseen world is also of primary importance for them even though they call themselves materialists and the ardent fans of matter. They are not ready to acknowledge even for a moment, that there is anything like God or the Unseen World or it has any meanings or significance or it is inadequate to ignore it. They remain surrounded by the concepts which can only be termed as the materialistic once. When anything like Unseen is mentioned, their demand is always the same, that is, they cannot be conducted to any thing like the Unseen unless it is not Supplemented by a demonstration nor they are ready to believe in the Unseen or that it could be of any use or they have got any intention of granting any place to the theory of the Unseen in the world of science. No matter whatsoever they say it is only a style of their speech and an approach of their thinking. But practically they are at par with a believer of the Unseen, who presents God after acknowledging all the agencies mandatory for the faith, mentioned in the Holy Quran by God, the Most High, and have influence over any such person who believes in God. And he believes in all those agencies and entities to be a living reality and a concrete fact just as materialists acknowledge a stone or a mineral object which is present before them, which they comprehend and feel through their senses of touch, taste and sight, and about which they tell us so many things. Such as there is variation in it, there is combination in it, it is balance and moderate, it has effect, there is energy in it. And they talk in the same manner about the things present in the world of matter and they believe in them in a particular manner. In other words, Just as a fan worshipper of God believes and has faith in the Unseen similarly the lover of materialism believes in the world of matter. Neither a theist can live without believing the World of Unseen nor can a materialist live without believing the matter. Both have their own approaches and the only thing which they have in common, is their faith in their respective approaches. This faith and conviction is termed as 'life' by them. In fact, no life is possible without faith and conviction whether it is the life of an Atheist or that of a Materialist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Science and Supernatural
|
|
|
|
You are so full of bull; the last thing you should do is post your delusions on the net for all to see. There is nothing that you say in this post that has any truth to it at all. How could you write that many lines without one little bit of insight to the truth? Let the scales from the past fall from your eyes for a moment. Imagine that everything you ever read about religion or spiritualism is wrong. Open your eyes with these truths instilled in you: There has never been direct contact with God. The stories in the bible for instance, where God is talking to someone comes from time when man did not have any answers to life's mysteries and mental illness. What if Abraham was a madman? His story was not written down for many years. What if they got it wrong? Then there is Moses. He was thought to be the son of a Pharaoh before the truth came out. I am sure his supposed father loved him very much and felt sympathy for him when he came to free his people. That is more like the true story. He let them go because he loved Moses. This story was told for many years before it was written down. I am sure the magic was embellished. Then Moses went up in the mountains to talk to God. He was gone for a long time. I can just see him saying to himself: What do I tell these people whom are waiting for me to tell them the word of God. If I do not go back with something, they will lose all direction and faith. Therefore, he did what man has done in every situation where he had pressure on him. He made something up and carved out the 10 commandments. He never thought about anyone believing this for 4 thousand years and basing all religion on it. He just did what he had to do. This is what all men who were the elders in their tribes sitting around a campfire did when they were asked were we come from. They told what they had learned from their elders, only they embellished a little bit. So, the story has got bigger and better. The bottom line is no one has communicated with God. That means every word written about God or spoken about God is made up by a human. I am sure even the most God fearing, praying, sinless, and do good person will tell a little lie for the Lord. It helps those with less faith believe and helps the church so it cannot hurt. These lies have pilled on top of one another until we cannot even face life without believing in unseen things. Then there are the Psychic abilities that are talked about in your post. The magicians understand this kind of thing better than anyone else does. That is why a trickster had many a bad night on the Johnny Carson show because he started out as a magician. Uri Geller's trick was bending spoons and metal objects. He would have a straight one and a bent one in his hand and do a real convincing job of smoothly transitioning the two. Johnny brought out a tray of his own silverware so that Geller could not have a bent one like it. Geller said that his powers were weak and would not work. There is also the night he caught the preacher with a miniature microphone in his ear receiving information from God. The people in the audience were asked to fill out a form when they came in about what needed healing. One of the people in the back was feeding info to the preacher with RADIO waves. I am sure the preacher thought a few lies were fine when you are bringing people to the lord. What if all of it is lies? Even the gospels were not written down for 20 years. I am sure Jesus was a very charismatic man and the disciples loved him very much. I know they were only trying to help their young church and stretching the story would not hurt. Look inside yourself and think about how you would react if under pressure. They had told stories and embellished them for twenty years and now were being asked to let someone write them down. They can tell the truth and face ridicule and a public stoning or tell some lies and be heroes, clergy and loved by all they meet. There is not much of a choice. Do I know this is what happened? No, but I think we can not know the circumstances for sure and must assume that most of it is far from the truth. I am sure the followers of Jesus were shocked and horrified when the Romans crucified him. It is such a beautiful story that I long for it to be true. It has been made that way by many years of embellishment. This is the most polished story in the history of man. There has been countless people work on the stories of the New Testament and probably a million man-hours. I have done tests to see how much a story changes. I once made up a story about a local cemetery that I said was haunted. I told several people the story and then waited. Someone else told me the story a few months later and I barely recognized it. Nearly every line was changed. How can we believe a story from 2000 years ago when a few months are enough to destroy any hint of originality?
Then there is the Amazing Randy. He has had a MILLION dollars in trust for years he will give to anyone who will come and prove they are psychic under scrutiny. Not one person has even attempted this. Why? Because everybody knows inside that they are a fake. When you bring a lie out of the darkness to the light of day, it is the end of the lie. Many believers cannot take the truth. If you think about the lies that you tell every day you will realize that the whole world is built on lies. What is the truth? I will not lie; I do not know what is the truth. I think it has a lot to do with what we are learning now in Science. In addition, the vast size of the universe of which the human mind cannot comprehend how huge. I am 99% sure there are other intelligent creatures in the universe. Notice I did not say it was a fact as the previous poster did! Then there is the ultimate question of God: Why is there something (existence) instead of nothing? I Believe (made up bull, so do not start a religion based on this) that at the end of the universe, when all the energy of all the stars is used up, and we are headed for the big crunch. There are a few civilizations that have reached ultimate knowledge. They realize that the beginning of time and the end of time are the same and they must start the universe. It is all a big circle of time created 85 billion years in the future. I am sure it is so complicated we will not understand it for millions of years. That is if some religious fanatic does not destroy the world in the name of a god that does not exist except in the minds of those who believe in all the lies from the past. The way that we hug up to and hang on to lies, I do not give the human race much of a chance to be among those civilizations left in 85 billion years. If you really want a life after death, the only way is to start supporting reasearch which will extend your life and make you uploadable to a machine someday. Stop supporting those silly churches and mystic bullshit religions. Stop going to those silly Devil movies and the ones based on revelations or prophecy. We should strive to let some real light into the world and end the iron clad grip that lies have on the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science and Supernatural
|
|
|
|
It has been proved by the scientific researches that by practicing certain exercises and personal efforts, man can arouse the supernatural abilities. Keeping in view the advancement in the fields of telepathy and hypnotism by the European countries and particularly by the former U.S.S.R; if the worshipping rituals and ascetic exercises are considered to be the only means of acquiring the Metaphysical Sciences, it amounts to belittling the subject because the nations which have altogether no faith and belief in religions have excelled considerably in their achievements regarding the Metaphysical Sciences
One thing which is frequently mentioned in Spiritualism is the Conducting 1nfluence, that is, the teacher; Shaikh, preceptor or the, 'Guru' inducts certain spiritual changes by focusing his attention in his pupil, disciple or the spiritual son. Today a scientist can also do the same. He can also influence the desired people telepathically and can force them to do a particular job, which he intends them to do. A term commonly used in Spiritualism is 'To See in the Inner' that is, to observe the outer space of this planet through the Inner Eye. This also has been done by the scientists successfully and they have their claim of walking in space to their credit.
Man possesses certain abilities which if activated enables him to disclose those informations which are not found in the books. Science has established its advancement in this regard as well and knowledges which were initially hard to believe and beyond the comprehension of the human intellect have been discovered and as a result those things have come into existence which has forced man to believe them. In such circumstances the terms of Spiritualism, like Attention, Influence, Opening of the Inner Eye, emancipation from Time and Space have become a perplexing puzzle. Till date it is believed that the paranormal abilities of foresightedness and clairvoyance etc. can only be activated through the recitation of certain verses and repetition of certain words. It has become very important to understand, in the present era of science, that if the people who do not have faith in any religion, can Conduct the Influence, can activate their Inner Eye to function, can lay the foundations of ever new sciences, can walk in Space, then what is this Spiritualism?
Religion is bound to come under discussion when we talk of Spiritualism. The principle on which the religions have been founded is that performance of the religions duties should enable man to bring a change in his own life or to enable him to Conduct Influence in the lives of other, the things hidden within the earth or in the outer sphere of the earth may appear before his Inner Eye. But when we study the lives of the followers of the religions we hardly find a single person, in the multitude of millions and billions of religious people who can exercise the power of Conductive Influence and his Inner Sight is operative. It is quite astonishing that the religious people are ignorant of the knowledges, which have been discovered by the people who have no faith in religions. Naturally, in such circumstances every serious minded person would be constrained to think, (What is this religion?) (Top)
Law
There are countless species in the universe. Each and every species and every individual of every species in their individual capacity is in constant and continuous contact with one another through the waves of thought, and the Same link is the cause of introduction and intimacy between them. These waves of thoughts, in fact, arc the individual and collective informations which are responsible for bringing the individuals of the universe close to life every moment and every second. In fact our whole life is associated with the thoughts and the effectiveness of the thoughts depends upon the certitude and dubiety, belief and disbelief. This is the main point upon which the edifice of religion is founded.
Man passes through the various stages of life in small intervals of time and utilizes the fractions of time to live his life by combining and connecting these fractions' together in his mind. We either advance from one fraction of time towards the next consecutive fraction or revert back to the previous one. In order to understand this, man thinks of taking food but due to an upset stomach the intention is relinquished, how long will he abstain from it? He has no idea in this regard. Likewise thoughts are the ingredients of his life which either makes him successful or unsuccessful. An intention is formed, then is relinquished or is postponed whether with in minutes of its formation or in hours, in months or in years, anyhow it is ultimately abandoned. This abandonment or the relinquishment is the chief constituent of man's life.
There are many things like hardships, difficulties, worries, diseases, anxiety, depression etc. etc. and to equalize all these there is one thing called 'peace'', in which man seeks all types of eases and comforts. Most of them are not real but hypothetical and for man they appear to be the easy ones. This creates the trend of inclination towards the easygoing. Actually, formation of the human brain is such that it makes him go for facilities and to avoid the difficulties. These are evidently, two directions and man spends his life between these two directions through his thoughts. Every activity is motivated in one of these two directions. When we decide a plan, we were organizing it. It was perfect and complete in all its aspects and its direction was also correct but it happens that after taking only a few steps, a change takes place in our mind, with the change the direction of our thoughts also undergoes a change resulting in a net change in the direction of our activity. And the target towards which we were heading goes into oblivion. What is left with us? Groping and taking steps grippingly, This is why only one out of millions of people takes a step which is in the right direction and is not withdrawn. It may please be kept in mind that all this is about the in-between states of doubts and beliefs. So far as the majority is concerned, the main force that controls' their minds is that whim and doubt, which is ceaselessly effecting the cells of their minds. The more the intensity of doubts, the more will be the deterioration of the brain cells. It will not be out of place to mention that all the nerves of the body work under the brain cells and the activities of the nerves are the life.
Believing something is equally difficult for man as coming out of the illusions, dubiety and disbelief, For example, man presents himself contrary to what he actually is. He always hides his weaknesses and boosts about those hypothetical virtues which actually are not possessed by him.(Top)
Society and our Belief
The society in which a person is educated and reared up becomes his belief and his mind fails to analyze this belief and thus the belief become his faith although it is not more than a deceptive illusion. The main cause for this, as already stated, is that he poses himself contrary to what be actually is. This type of life causes him to face many difficulties, the difficulties which he cannot resolve. It causes, at every step, fear in him that his action would prove to be futile and would yield no result. Sometimes this doubt becomes so intense that he begins to believe that his life is facing destruction and if not destroying it is in great danger. All this happens because of the rapid deterioration of brain cells, the eventual out come of dubiety.
When life is lived contrary to that which actually it or is posed differently than what one is in fact then actions and deeds based upon this sort of life do not yield positive results. When he wants to achieve the desired results from such deeds, accelerated alterations and deterioration of brain cells changes the tracks of his practical life and either it does not yield any result or proves to be harmful or produces such a doubt which hinders and obstructs him from taking any step at all. The mental structure or the construction of the mind in fact, is in man's own control. Here 'structure' means that the rate of deterioration of the brain cells is accelerated, balanced and moderate or the minimum. It is sheer luck if some one is saved from doubt, which is because of the minimum and the least deterioration of the brain cells. The scarcity of doubt and dearth of uncertainty in the mind is directly proportional to the successes of life whereas the intensity of doubts and uncertainty has its direct proportionality with the failures of life.(Top)
Deterioration of the Brain Cells
It is unfortunate on man's part that he evaluates the Knowledges granted to him by God, on the basis of self-made and false principles and refuses to acknowledge them as such. Light has been declared by God as the basis of each and every Knowledge. Man was required to explore the maximum types and kinds of lights and their functions but he never paid proper attention to this and this thing always remained in obscurity. Man didn't try to lift this veil because either such a veil never existed for him or he never paid any attention to it. He never attempted to explore rules and principles governing the composition of lights. If this approach had been adopted by him the deterioration of the brain cells would not have been the minimum and he would have advanced towards the belief and the doubts would not have bothered him as much as they are troubling him now. The hindrances and obstructions in his practical activities would have also been minimum but it didn't happen so, he didn't explore the types of lights nor did he try to discover the nature of the lights.
He even doesn't know that lights also have their specific structural formations, natures and they even have the trends and tendencies of particular characteristics. He also doesn't know that the very lights are his life and they protect him as well. He is only familiar with the effigy of the clay and dust which doesn't posses any life of its own. The effigy made from the rotten clay by God has no reality of its own. The reality is that which has been breathed in him by God in the form of the Soul. Ignorance from the actions of the lights causes aversion from the saying of God in this regard. The more the aversion the more increased will be the doubts and whims and faith and belief would also be shattered accordingly. The spiritualists define faith as a belief in which there is no doubt. Actual cause of weakness in determination or that of faith is this doubt As long as reluctance and hesitation in thoughts is there firmness of the faith is not possible. A thought after acquiring the lights of faith and firm belief becomes a manifestation or the phenomenon.(Top)
The Religion
Religion causes us to enter into that pattern of faith and belief where no doubt or whim exists and man observes the Unseen World and the angels actively participating in the affairs of the Unseen World through his Inner Eye. Observations of the Unseen World establishes such a relationship of man with his Lord which enables him to see that the Attributes of the Creator are encompassing him. If the Inner Sight of a person is not functional, then according to Spiritualism, he has yet to enter the circle of faith. When someone enters into the circle of faith the evilness and the destructiveness take their leave from his thoughts and faith; if the Unseen World is not revealed upon a person he will always remain suppressed by evilness and destructiveness. This is the reason that despite all the comforts and facilities at his disposal, the endless new inventions and discoveries, everybody is suffering from anxiety, worries, restlessness and feelings of insecurity. Since science believes in matter and the matter is only fiction and unstable therefore all the means and resources of comforts and luxuries, every invention and all the progress and advancement of science is also temporary and perishable. How can something based upon deterioration and perishability provide real pleasure. The basic and fundamental difference between Religion and Infidelity is that the latter causes whims, doubts and uncertainty whereas religion associates all the feelings, thoughts, concepts, deeds and activities of life with the only One, Endogenous and Permanent Being.(Top)
The Scientific Doctrine
The material doctrine, preached and advocated by the scientists is that nothing could be acknowledged unless it has not been practically demonstrated. They, despite all the knowledge, which is possessed by them, forget that by limiting themselves in a material shell they are negating their own theory. It is also said by them that anything which is unseen by the sight has no reality whereas the basis of all their progress and advancement are the invisible waves of light
The founder of the Qalander Conscious, proclaimer of the Reality, Hassan Ukhra Mohammed Azeem Burkhiya, Qalander Baba Auliya states.
"In all the sciences concerning the spiritual values considered so far, the universe which is a significant manifestation is of secondary importance. First the Hidden and the Unseen are considered and their understanding is attempted with a preference. If the Hidden and the Unseen are easily understood then gradually it becomes clear as to how these manifestations and phenomena come into being and what rules and laws are responsible to create and regulate them. Ali these things are ostensibly felt just like the many experiences which prior to maturity have a certain correlation and harmony in them. All those things which are related to the Unseen have been mentioned under various names in the Holy Quran by God and the prophets by mentioning those names, elucidated their characteristics, virtues and merits for the people. The Books and Scriptures before the Holy Quran also throw light on those things but only casual references are found there, more elaborate details in this regard are found in the Holy Quran only. When the details given by the Holy Quran are considered and deliberated upon, it would be concluded that the Unseen is more important than the manifestations and the phenomena. Comprehension and understanding of the Unseen is very important. That which is called religion is also based upon the Unseen. The manifestations are mentioned in the religions but they are always given secondary importance. No matter how much preference is ascribed to them by the material world it never had a primary significance in any era of any religion. Now the material world has also gradually begun to think in the same terms. For instance, the scientists of the present age have been forced to prefer the Unseen. First they suppose something and then they Strive to draw the conclusions and results. When they are concluding something they consider all their suppositions as real, indispensable and certain. For instance, the characteristics and behavior of the electron is under heated debates in this century, All the scientists unanimously agree that it behaves like a particle and as a wave simultaneously. It is interesting to note that a thing which is only hypothetical is behaving in two ways at the same time and its behavior is acknowledged as sure and certain. It is also said, besides this, that electron has not been seen till date nor there is any such hope even in the future. But despite all this the electron is acknowledged as one of the most concrete reality which has ever been perceived by the human mind, or would ever come to man's knowledge. It is only a supposition in their minds which has been followed and the result of their pursuit is such a conclusion which is of great significance for inventions and discoveries and is considered an important stage of success.
They are striving hard to introduce this important stage to the people, Many times it happens that things once believed to be factual and real are rejected and replaced by new facts, discoveries and formulae. And these new substituted facts and formulae are considered worthy of the same importance which was once reserved for the rejected ones. Obviously the unseen world is also of primary importance for them even though they call themselves materialists and the ardent fans of matter. They are not ready to acknowledge even for a moment, that there is anything like God or the Unseen World or it has any meanings or significance or it is inadequate to ignore it. They remain surrounded by the concepts which can only be termed as the materialistic once. When anything like Unseen is mentioned, their demand is always the same, that is, they cannot be conducted to any thing like the Unseen unless it is not Supplemented by a demonstration nor they are ready to believe in the Unseen or that it could be of any use or they have got any intention of granting any place to the theory of the Unseen in the world of science. No matter whatsoever they say it is only a style of their speech and an approach of their thinking. But practically they are at par with a believer of the Unseen, who presents God after acknowledging all the agencies mandatory for the faith, mentioned in the Holy Quran by God, the Most High, and have influence over any such person who believes in God. And he believes in all those agencies and entities to be a living reality and a concrete fact just as materialists acknowledge a stone or a mineral object which is present before them, which they comprehend and feel through their senses of touch, taste and sight, and about which they tell us so many things. Such as there is variation in it, there is combination in it, it is balance and moderate, it has effect, there is energy in it. And they talk in the same manner about the things present in the world of matter and they believe in them in a particular manner. In other words, Just as a fan worshipper of God believes and has faith in the Unseen similarly the lover of materialism believes in the world of matter. Neither a theist can live without believing the World of Unseen nor can a materialist live without believing the matter. Both have their own approaches and the only thing which they have in common, is their faith in their respective approaches. This faith and conviction is termed as 'life' by them. In fact, no life is possible without faith and conviction whether it is the life of an Atheist or that of a Materialist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Ron,
I've written this several times, but I think it is worth repeating.
1. I seriously doubt that any amount of scientific investigation will EVER decide the "superior intelligence behind the observable universe" question. If there is an omnipotent omniscience that was reponsible for everything, or pulls all the strings "at will", and decides to remain hidden, then hidden they will remain.
2. Science has, as its core endeavor, to explain the universe in ways that DO NOT require or suppose the existence of any "willful actor" that causes events to occur, or is responsible for the "rules" in any ongoing way. The reason for this is quite pragmatic. If things "behave as they do" because of their "unthinking and intrinsic nature", then rules formulated based upon observations can be relied upon to be as predictive tomorrow as they are today.
If (instead) we were to suppose that (say) gravity is effected by the "will of God", then there is no sense in trying to formulate rules for gravity ... they could all change drastically the moment God takes a coffee break.
None of this rules out the possibility of God, but science has AS ITS JOB to develop the best explanations it can that require no "willful actor or designer" having been present.
If one likes, one can take science as a game like chess. To invoke God as an element of scientific discourse is akin to invoking the rules of checkers during a game of chess. Its a different game.
Cheers! ____tony b____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Ron,
If you point is simply that "some intellectuals have knee-jerk reactions to 'God' concepts", then I agree, but many God-Believers have similar reactions to materialist, humanist, or naturalist concepts, depending upon their flavor of God.
Of course, "something" can exist, regardless of the attributions anyone makes.
In an attempt to separate this discussion from a mere play on words, suppose I told you:
--- "I simply would not rule out a theory because someone attached Bleem to it."
I would think you might ask me, "Tony, What on earth do you mean by 'Bleem'?"
If God were immutable (unchanging, static) then God could not "create anything" nor be responsible for anything, since such an act defies the term "stasis". The term "God" either intends to imply a "conscious willful, all-(fill-in-the-blank) being", or it might as well be called "the universe". Then one would be saying "the universe might be immutable", or "the universe set the universe in motion", and "I simply would not rule out a theory because someone attached 'universe' to it."
But, in all honesty, how often do those who employ the term "God" ever intend it to be simply synonymous with "the universe"? They generally intend "something more that you cannot find with science", which is quite fine. But is not an issue for scientific investigation, by its very premise.
I doubt there are many "honest" scientists who can offer any explanation as to "why anything exists at all". Taken to that extreme, most will say "call it God if you like, what difference would it make."
And indeed, that is the ESSENTIAL point regarding scientific investigation. Irrespective of the "prime cause" (if such exists) behind light, energy, electrons, the universe, all else is treated as following entirely from intrinsic properties under no deliberated influence. For science, a "God" so removed from relevance is no "God" with which to be concerned.
A hallmark of any "reasonable theory" is that it presents itself in a manner that is refutable. Had the apparent position of stars not been observed to be deflected around the limb of the sun during the solar eclipse of 1915, the scientific community would have said to Einstein, "Nice try, but back to the drawing board for you."
Those who would inject an inscrutable God-presence into a "theory" abuse the term "theory", for (to my knowledge) there is no "refutation test" possible.
If there is any validity to "the intellectual's rejection of theories with God", it is founded there.
Cheers! ____tony b____
I didn't say that God created the universe. Indians think Coyote created earth. I simply would not
rule out a theory because someone attached God to it. God could be immutable and the rules by
which he may have set the universe in motion could be immutable as well. And I do believe that God
can exist regardless of what we, mankind attribute to him... or don't attribute to him. The basic
premise still stands. Intellectuals rule out his existence because of an inherent bias towards
organized Christian religion and the creationist theory they espouse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
>>I suppose science has both its "functional side" (trying to construct stuff that works as expected) as well as its "philosophical side" (an attempt to explicate "reality".)
Those who employ it toward the former purpose can expect to meet with a measure of success.
Those who employ it for the latter purpose are really engaging in a "religion of science", and I won't offer prospects for success in that endeavor.<<
Bingo. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think where some theists get into "intellectual trouble" is when they attempt to use the metaphorical language of myth incorrectly. In my experience, This seems to be largely a fixation of Western religion. Quicha storytellers sometimes start reciting their people's creation myth with the ritual introduction, "I don't know if this story is factual, but it is true." (It's not actually that bald sounding...factual is the most exact short translation I can pull out of my head just sitting here remembering...the actual word I give as "factual" would be closer to "true in terms of facts", and the word I translate as "true" would be "true in terms of wisdom.")
Similarly, I think many "science-ists" (a terrible neologism to be sure)would be well served to ponder the last 25 centuries of debate in Western philosophy in ontology and epistemology. The scientist's endeavor to explain the "nature of reality" reminds me of Xeno's paradox--one gets closer and closer to the goal, but it is actually impossible to get there, in my opinion, using the formal structure of science...although, of course, science is extremely useful in explaining certain aspects of reality.
BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
> My premise stands; modern day intellectuals often overlook the possibility of God's existence because he is associated with religious dogma.
A logical atheist would not rule out any chance that some deity may be responsible for the 'creation' our universe, but lack of evidence dictates that it cannot be seriously considered. On what premise would it be?
> It is possible that something exists even though it can't be empirically proven at this time.
That essentially means nothing. It's also technically possible, I suppose, that there are diamond-rich caves sitting somewhere on Mars. I doubt there are any Martian expeditions being planned around such an unlikelihood.
> Carl Sagan also defined the universe as infinite...ambitious was he?
I suppose that would depend on how literally he intended his statement to be taken. I've heard an estimate placing the number of atomic particles in the universe at 10^80, which is obviously a guess, but still far from infinite'which is what it would remain even if raised to it's own power a few billion times.
> I am not a Creationist, but refuse to rule out a possibility simply because it doesn't fit the "Big Bang" theory of the universe. The Big Bang is also running into problems at its premise. One problem among several: Why is the universe speeding up when the bang occurred 12 billion years ago?
Who knows. Maybe we'll find out. If there is a god who's responsible for a few of the unknowns, I strongly suspect that explaining his existence would be far greater a headache then trying to figure out the acceleration of universal expansion.
-
On another note, Tony b made a comment regarding the mystery of existence. I find existence no harder (or easier) to contemplate then the notion of non-existence; which would obviously include the total absence of matter, time, and space. Why fuss over origins beyond what science can reveal? ..Especially by introducing the idea of an entity which is necessarily in concept even more complex the universe itself, and would still be subject to the question of an origin.
Ok, so I'm done now.
-r3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
I think it's a variation on peer pressure.
In our society, we're taught to shut down at the mention of God, especially since the values inherent in religious faith run counter to the way our society functions, and the values inherent within it.
Strictly speaking of religion, organised religion, on the other hand, I'd say that most "intellectuals" can see that the organized churches are filled with hypocrisy and contradiction, whose teachings, actions, and restrictions run counter to the underlying message of religious faith - of love, peace, acceptance, tolerance, and sacrifice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
As usual, there is at least one huge blind spot here among the discussants. One cannot bring up the subject of "intellectuals" (at least those afforded prominence in American culture) without mentioning Jews. "Intellectuals" have largely been Leftist/Liberal for the past few decades, until fairly recently when a trend is spilling to the right. (The so-called "neo-cons," many who are afforded the most prominence, are of course also Jewish). The question that leads this thread therefore stretches into the question: "Why have Jews been so influential in Marxist movements (emphatically anti-religious -- Marx too, of course, was from a Jewish family), an ideology that, on one hand, sanctified the proletariat, and, on the other, killed them?"
A related question should also be: "Why have "intellectuals" (led by a Jewish vanguard) pathologized religious faith? And the answer will have something to do with the importance for Jewry of devaluing the DOMINANT religion in America (the one they are convinced that oppresses them), and that is Christianity. (We may also speculate upon the influence of Talmudic materialism and "this-life" orientation to explain the historical influence of Marxist secular Jewry). Again, the premise of the question of this thread notes that "most Americans" (subtext: non-Jews) take religion more seriously than "most intellectuals" (subtext: Jews).
Organized Jewry (American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committe, the ACLU -- largely Jewish, et al) have been extremely influential in "separation of church and state issues in recent decades. The reason is the fear that Jewish tribal identity -- not necessarily religious -- will be subsumed by dominant Christian mores if the mainstream religious culture is not repelled. The American mass media (largely led by a Judeo-centric influence in Hollywood, television, etc.) has been an important part of the devaluing of religious faith.
Doubt my premise of here? Bear in mind that Jews represent about 2.5% of American culture. In a 1974 book, The American Intellectual Elite, Charles Kadushin produced the results of his studies. He had tabulated lists of contributors to leading American "intellectual" publications, narrowed the names down to 200, and in a series of queries or interviews asked his subjects who were the most influential intellectuals around. Of the top 21 most highly rated (by others in this publishing circle), 15 were Jewish, including Hannah Arendt, Daniel Bell, Saul Bellow, Noam Chomsky, Paul Goodman,
Richard Hofstadter, Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Norman Mailer, Herbert Marcuse, Norman Podhoretz, David Riesman, Robert Silvers, Susan Sontag, and Lionel Trilling. [KADUSHIN, p. 30] Half of
the total 200 were also reputed to be Jewish. As Kadushin notes, "Jews are indeed much more strongly represented among leading intellectuals than the population at large. They compose about half of the American intellectual elite. Catholics are vastly underrepresented, but Protestants, who are one-third of the group, are also relatively underrepresented ... [KADUSHIN, p. 23] ... Even in comparison with elite American professors (those who published more than 20 articles in academic journals and who teach in high-quality colleges and universities) of the same age and in the same fields, there are between two and five times as many Jews in the
intellectual elite."[KADUSHIN, p. 24] In the world of academia (professorships) at-large, 60% of the "intellectual elite" were found to be Jewish. [KADUSHIN, p. 24] The "intellectual elite" also had a geographical flavor -- half of the academic elite held positions at four East Coast universities -- Columbia, New York University, Harvard, and Yale. [KADUSHIN, p. 23]
And how does one become a "prominent" intellectual; how does one crash the circle of elite? Publication, of course, in Jewish-founded journals like the New York Review of Books, Dissent, and so forth). Here, at this very forum, we are all guests, of course, of Mr. Kurzweil's contributions to (Jewish) "intellectualism."
It is a subject worth further investigation.
EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT JEWS AND ISRAEL BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
YOU SAY: "Wow. I guess Jews are the veritable font of human intellectualism, and so influential despite their small numbers. I owe them a great debt of gratitude for supplying me with a rational basis for understanding the world, without which I would likely be mired in superstitions and hocus-pocus. Fortunately, my inferior genetic background is not so retrograde that I am incapable of benefiting from this intellectual foundation."
I SAY: Your sarcasm and trivialism makes no point. It argues nothing, save for your clinging to sarcasm. Behind that, your "intellectual" comment here is completely vaccuous. Rendering all that you don't believe in as "hocus pocus" is inane.
YOU SAID: "I suppose we should follow their lead, then. There is no substitute for success."
I SAY: There is indeed a substitute for "success." You don't seem to grasp the irony of what you are saying, per the subject at hand. Say, a traditional Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist conception of value? What are the social processes, one might wonder, that inform your comments that are such a drastic antithesis to so many expressions of traditional religious faith? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Jewish influence,
> "What are the social processes, one might wonder, that inform your comments that are such a drastic antithesis to so many expressions of traditional religious faith?"
A drastic antithesis? That is "ultimate" is likely unknowable (certainly be "scientific methods")?
Rather than beat about the bush with allusions to the import of Jewish intellectual influence, why not simply offer your position on the matter?
I happen to have a strong appreciation for the fruits of intellectual endeavors and the scientific method, despite my belief that they cannot ascertain "fundamental truth", but merely a basis for function. And I would thank the devil for providing me such tools, (if I believed in the devil.)
For all your passion about Jewish influence, you must have a thesis, and can suggest a plan of action, presentable (if not defensible) in a few short statements. Why not take a definitive stand? Give us your vision of a "solution" to the serious truth that has been revealed to you.
Or do you prefer tossing gasoline on fires?
Cheers! ____tony b____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
YOU SAY: "Rather than beat about the bush with allusions to the import of Jewish intellectual influence, why not simply offer your position on the matter? I happen to have a strong appreciation for the fruits of intellectual endeavors and the scientific method, despite my belief that they cannot ascertain "fundamental truth", but merely a basis for function. And I would thank the devil for providing me such tools, (if I believed in the devil.) For all your passion about Jewish influence, you must have a thesis, and can suggest a plan of action, presentable (if not defensible) in a few short statements. Why not take a definitive stand? Give us your vision of a "solution" to the serious truth that has been revealed to you. Or do you prefer tossing gasoline on fires?"
I SAY: The reason Jewish Tribal Review and When Victims Rule. A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America exists is to answer -- with extensive documentation -- your questions. Since we are a "sound bite" culture, and you want all of Jewish identity and history condensed into two or three sentences, I'll pull this out of the vastness of it all, just to whet your appetite:
1) "Being Jewish" is a distinct identity.
2) It is forbidden in modern society to critically investigate this identity. 3) Modern Jewish identity, whether secular or religious, remains a tribal allegiance. 4) International Jewry is a very powerful entity (economically, culturally, etc.) 5) Israel is a brutal, racist state and is dragging us into world war. 6) The Jewish hegemony we currently have in so many fields is good for no one (ultimately not even Jews); it subverts a reasonable, "multicultural" sharing of power.
That's merely a start.
Goals? Public discussion. Education. (As you know, investigating Jewish power and influence is, thanks to vast Jewish lobbying efforts that have went on for decades now, pathologized (i.e., irrational "antisemitism.") How to change things? Probably based upon the well-worn Jewish model (loud complaining, appeals to justice, legal action, socialize people to demand a true democracy in the business world, etc.) which has been centrally active in the weakening of the WASP power structure (which existed/exists in some spheres, but in areas like the mass media, modern art, pornography, etc., these have always been JEWISH territories.
The "definitive stand" is the web site, jewishtribalreview.org, and you may peruse it at your leisure. All the evidence for my complaints you will find there.
I welcome your challenge to anything I have stated here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
stzzb,
I do not differ with the "substance" of (most) of the points you have listed, which I address individually below. My issue is one of implications, and moreover, of "technique" in seeing injustices be identified and corrected.
> 1) "Being Jewish" is a distinct identity.
As an ethnicity, yes. And as a cultural/religious phenomenon, perhaps these coincide "more closely" than, say, one might find a Japanese to be Buddhist, an Irish to be Catholic (or Protestant) etc. However, being Irish or Japanese is quite a distinct identity, in general.
> 2) It is forbidden in modern society to critically investigate this identity.
Please reword.
It is forbidden in modern society to molest children. Those who do are subject to arrest by police (if neighbors do not beat them to death first), and upon conviction, can expect long prison sentences. Clearly you do not intend "forbidden" in the same manner.
Few groups that enjoy a degree of power will happily promote the publication of their negative aspects. The "forbidden" quality you ascribe seems to overlap to a large degree with a more general political correctness.
If a black person, or a chinese gang commits a crime, it is no violation of political correctness to identify those perpetrators as black or chinese. But it is defamation of "an identity" to offer, therefore, that blacks (as a group) are criminals, need to be "investigated more carefully" etc. To do so is a pre-emptive strike that treats people as guilty until discovered innocent.
> 3) Modern Jewish identity, whether secular or religious, remains a tribal allegiance.
OK. So religiously, culturally, and perhaps even ethnically, Jews tend to "hang together". Is the implication, thus, that they pass secret messages with each handshake? That they await, and obey the orders passed down from the Jewish High Command? Take a tour of any major metropolitan area, and you will see "enclaves" were folks of a particular ethnicity/culture keep themselves in a tight-knit ball. I don't happen to think its very healthy, in the long run, but it is certainly not a pretext for mounting covert surveillance.
> 4) International Jewry is a very powerful entity (economically, culturally, etc.)
Undeniably. Again, not a crime in and of itself. It does make "large coordinated actions" possible, of course, and this is a "perk" generally enjoyed by any powerful international group or coalition. In thirty years, if they play their cards right, the chinese may be the dominant pan-global cultural phenomenon.
> 5) Israel is a brutal, racist state and is dragging us into world war.
I am no particular fan of "Israel - the Government", do not excuse brutality, nor racism. I do not find it surprising, given their situation, that they would act (globally) to encourage the destruction or subjugation of what they percieve to be their enemies. But if you were to ask the average Israeli citizen, "Would you risk a global war to subjugate your enemies, given the risk that such a broad war might leave ALL areas in the vicinity completely devastated", I think you would find they support no such "path to salvation". Thus, to characterize "Israel" as a brutal, racist, imperialist entity, and by extension, to argue via "Jews, worldwide, hang together" in order to implicate every (sucessful) Jew in my neighborhood as a virtual co-conspirator to a brutal global domination is the height of injustice. They become "guilty for being successful".
If it were up to me, I would force Israel to abide by UN Resolution 242 and withdraw forthwith from the territories secured through the 1967 war, under threat of withholding billions in annual aid. And I would offer substantial assistence to rebuilding those areas in support of a strong Palestinian state.
> 6) The Jewish hegemony we currently have in so many fields is good for no one (ultimately not even Jews); it subverts a reasonable, "multicultural" sharing of power.
Yes, I am personally dismayed at the "consolidations" of the media (fewer independent news services), and of the "content provider's" efforts to "copyright for perpetuity" that which should revert to public domain. There are "sound principles" for opposing such efforts in the interest of the public good, and they should be organized as such with rhetoric focused upon these unhealthy manifestations.
These trends would be just as disconcerting if any group, cultural, ethnic, or just "rich folk in general" were to succeed at them. My concern is that, by labeling them as "Jewish" manifestations or agenda, no matter that they may be the dominant players, acts to suggest that "Jewery itself" must be attacked, and that these unhealthy monopolies might be somehow less of a concern if it were some other group with such power.
Most of all, my objection was targeted at the characterization of dispassionate "intellectualism" as evidence of one having fallen under a spell crafted specifically by Jews as part of their world domination agenda.
An old friend of mine lives in Arizona. He is a blond-haired, blue-eyed Bakersfield boy, his wife is Jewish, and they raise their kids with observations of Jewish traditional holiday activities. They are both industrious and resourceful people. If his wife were to get an advanced degree, start a successful business, and become "prominent" in the community, I cannot see that she should be penalized, investigated, or otherwise tarred with the brush of being yet another example of conspiratorial Jewish powerhood.
We should not equate, nor punish "justifiable success" as a substitute for addressing "unjustifiable excess".
Focus the investigations upon "bad acts, unhealthy and unjust behaviors", as opposed to focusing upon a religious/ethnic/tribal identity as a default "perpetrator class", and let the chips fall where they may. I'd be happy to see changes made, believe me.
Cheers! ____tony b____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Tony B, Thank you for your intelligent, and reasoned, reply.
YOU SAY: "I do not differ with the "substance" of (most) of the points you have listed, which I address individually below. My issue is one of implications, and moreover, of "technique" in seeing injustices be identified and corrected."
I SAY: OK.
YOU SAY: [responding to "'Being Jewish' is a distinct identity"] As an ethnicity, yes. And as a cultural/religious phenomenon, perhaps these coincide "more closely" than, say, one might find a Japanese to be Buddhist, an Irish to be Catholic (or Protestant) etc. However, being Irish or Japanese is quite a distinct identity, in general.
I SAY: Jewish identity is complex; it is not a singular essence (i.e., ethnic, religious, racial, whatever). It entails, for various Jews different things, but the question always remains: What is the common denominator? Comparing a Buddhist to a Jew, or a Japanese to a Jew, is never a fair comparison, because Jewry's intense TRIBAL allegiance is the weave that threads throughout any definition(s) of the Jewish people. There is no direct comparison, say, between an "Irish-American" or a Methodist with "being Jewish." Being Jewish entails a great deal more than just ethnicity, including, crucially, a "victimhood" root of self-perception.
This sense of chronic persecution (which is religious in origin) is believed even by the secular). Another key to Jewish identity is the notion of an omnipresent, transcendant, also mystical evil ("antisemitism) that haunts Jewry (as so self-defined) virtually everywhere, sooner or later. No other ethnic identity can compare, in gravity, to this ideology of victimhood.
YOU SAY: [Responding to "It is forbidden in modern society to critically investigate this identity"] Please reword.
I SAY: This is the discussion I have been having with "Pilgrim" on another thread. We live in an era when it is forbidden (pathologized) to criticize ethnic, religious, or racial communities (a product of, in very large extent) American Jewry's political activism in creating a comfortable nest (of Judeo-centrism and Zionism) in our new "multicultural" society (which used to be a "melting pot.") There is a dual standard implicit in this, for the prior power elite (define it as you like, as "white" or "Protestant," or whatever) has been subject to all manner of criticism towards diluting its power. Fine. But, meanwhile, Jewry plugs in as a "religious" group, or an "ethnic" group, or even a "racial" one. At the same time, Jewry acts, collectively, in a profoundly POLITICAL way to attain its ethnocentric, tribal interests (at cost of all others). By virtue of Jewry's various claims on immunity from criticism, its intensely POLITICAL essence ALSO is afforded a blanket screening from criticism. Herein lies a profoundly disturbing point.
An xample of the implicit censorship in all this (not necessarily political): Say, the Russian mafia. It is fundamentally a Jewish-directed syndicate. It has important links to Israel, and, in the drug trade world, it has links to the Chassidic community in New York City. Are ALL Jews part of this? Of course not. But this is not the point. The point is that ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CRIME NETWORK IS ITS INTER-TRIBAL TIES WITHIN ITS "JEWISH" NETWORK, and to publicly point this out is forbidden. ("Bigot! Racist! Antisemite!) One is not permitted to say the "J" word in a critical context, even if it is crucial in understanding how, say in this crime case, the crime syndicate is ordered. AND FUNCTIONS.
YOU SAY: "It is forbidden in modern society to molest children. Those who do are subject to arrest by police (if neighbors do not beat them to death first), and upon conviction, can expect long prison sentences. Clearly you do not intend "forbidden" in the same manner."
I SAY: You are really nitpicking the semantics of words. Criticizing Jews is not molesting children. Example: We live in a world where it is a crime (punishable by fines and prison sentences) in the "free" world (Australia, Germany, Switzlerland, Canada, etc.) to argue that the "Holocaust" did not occur on the scale claimed. I do not debate the conventions of that mass murder. I do think, however, it is profoundly disturbing that an "ethnic" group (Jews) have the lobbying power to forbid free speech on this subject in democratic countries. (Have you noticed anyone making laws to ban free speech about other historical issues lately?) You don't think it is "forbidden" to criticize Jews in popular culture? Look around you. If you'd like to pursue this more, I'll address it further with more examples.
YOU SAY: "Few groups that enjoy a degree of power will happily promote the publication of their negative aspects. The "forbidden" quality you ascribe seems to overlap to a large degree with a more general political correctness."
I SAY: There is a key exception to your first statement. The "Protestant" elite, or "white" elite, or European elite, or however you'd like to phrase them, have willingly "promoted the publication of their negative aspects." This is EVERYWHERE expressed around you as "white" racism. (When was the last time you read in a newspaper about "Jewish" examples of the same thing?) I point out to you also that Jews have been in the vanguard of the agitation for "political correctness" from the start, whether it's the "separation of Church and state," the championing of homosexuality, Jewish dominance of the African-American civil rights movement (including a Jewish potentate in the NAACP and other "Black" groups).
YOU SAY: "If a black person, or a chinese gang commits a crime, it is no violation of political correctness to identify those perpetrators as black or chinese.:"
I SAY: Please see my comments above about the "Rusian" mafia. (If you doubt my research about the Jewish complexion of this, read Robert Friedman's THE RUSSIAN MAFIYA.) More correctly, the term should be "Jewish mafia," not "Russian." And I ask you, how many times have you seen the "Russian" mafia addressed for the ethnicity it truly is. Bear in mind, it is LEGITIMATE to smear "Russians" in this term, but the Jewish component is SYSTEMATICALLY veiled, because saying the "J" word in a negative context is "forbidden" and condemned.
I also would point out to you that, in politically correct society, there journalistic conventions that decree that one DOES NOT mention the "ethnicity" of criminals. I believe it is nicknamed the "Cohen code" or something like that, but I'd have to look it up again.
YOU SAY: "But it is defamation of "an identity" to offer, therefore, that blacks (as a group) are criminals, need to be "investigated more carefully" etc. To do so is a pre-emptive strike that treats people as guilty until discovered innocent."
I SAY: Given the fact that Jews dominate the "Russian" mafia, and given the fact that Meyer Lansky and fellow Jews were the pistons of the "Syndicate" (America's greates crime network), and given that Jews verifiably dominate today's pornography and smut trades (trades that were once criminal but now, in politically correct culture, have become "kosher"), that Las Vegas is MAINLY a Jewish fiefdom (with some Italian mafia help), that Jews largely ran the turn of the century "white slavery trade" (prostitutiton) (See Edward Bristow's book PROSTITUTION AND PREJUDICE), that Israelis dominate the current "ecstacy" drug trade, that Jews are profoundly disproportionately represented in "white collar crime" (from Michael Milken to Enron's Andrew Fastow, on down, I think the reasoned, rational, moral historian will sit down and say: "OK. I know that ALL Jews are not part of this. BUT what is it about this tribal network that encourages such stuff?"
You say you are a devotee of the scientific method. In order to truly understand any phenomenon, you have to be open to see what's before your face. You may qualify your investigations any way you like, but to categorically dismiss one element in your investigation (say, Jews) of a problem is "bad science."
YOU SAY: "OK. So religiously, culturally, and perhaps even ethnically, Jews tend to "hang together". Is the implication, thus, that they pass secret messages with each handshake? That they await, and obey the orders passed down from the Jewish High Command? Take a tour of any major metropolitan area, and you will see "enclaves" were folks of a particular ethnicity/culture keep themselves in a tight-knit ball. I don't happen to think its very healthy, in the long run, but it is certainly not a pretext for mounting covert surveillance."
I SAY: The "implication" is that those who "hang together," whoever they are, have collective ideologies, prejudices, and networks. The Amish fit your bill too. But the Amish are not a factor in the mass media, international finance, the rise in "terrorism," the "Russian" mafia, and on and on and on and on. If Jews all went into enclaves and farmed turnips, I think they could believe whatever they wished and no one would care. This issue is the tribal allegiance and the vast POWER to assert this allegiance, with harm to all others.
"Orders from the High Command?" As I have repeatedly stated. There is indeed a very political "High Command" -- and that is allegiance to the modern racist state of Israel. I have already posted facts and figures about this at the Antisemitism thread. Are ALL Jews part of it? No. (OVERWHELMINGLY, most are). But that does not justify turning a blind eye to that WHICH DOES EXIST. Again, you proclaim yourself a devotee of the scientific method. In order to understand phenomena, do you focus on the ANOMALY to know the NORM?
YOU SAY: "Undeniably. Again, [Jewish power is] not a crime in and of itself."
I SAY: IT IS a problem, if not a crime.
YOU SAY: "It does make "large coordinated actions" possible, of course, and this is a "perk" generally enjoyed by any powerful international group or coalition. In thirty years, if they play their cards right, the chinese may be the dominant pan-global cultural phenomenon."
I SAY: Again, upon what verifiable facts to you compare the Chinese across the world and the Jews in our midst, as if the two are comparable in influencing American policy and identity?
YOU SAY: "I am no particular fan of "Israel - the Government", do not excuse brutality, nor racism. I do not find it surprising, given their situation, that they would act (globally) to encourage the destruction or subjugation of what they percieve to be their enemies. But if you were to ask the average Israeli citizen, "Would you risk a global war to subjugate your enemies, given the risk that such a broad war might leave ALL areas in the vicinity completely devastated", I think you would find they support no such "path to salvation". Thus, to characterize "Israel" as a brutal, racist, imperialist entity, and by extension, to argue via "Jews, worldwide, hang together" in order to implicate every (sucessful) Jew in my neighborhood as a virtual co-conspirator to a brutal global domination is the height of injustice. They become "guilty for being successful"."
I SAY: First, there are indeed Jews who are interested in a kind of world immolation/apocalypse, thereby forcing the return of the Messiah. They, of course, are not the majority of Israelis, but they DO exist, they are NOT insignificant and we have citations about them at our web site. On more than one occasion such Jewish "terrorists" have been caught planning to blow up the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, thereby instigating, hopefully to them, the apocalpyse.
Per, "guilt by success." Sir. Forgive me, but I tire from having to reinvent the wheel with every exchange at forums. The facts and figures about Jewish American support for Israel we have at our web site, and it is indicting. Jewish scholar upon scholar notes that the central current in Jewish identity today is Israel. It is one of the fundamental "pillars" of Jewish identity, by both secular and religious. Again, you're a scientist? Is the exception to the rule (a neighbor who condemns the Jewish state) the key to understanding?
YOU SAY: "If it were up to me, I would force Israel to abide by UN Resolution 242 and withdraw forthwith from the territories secured through the 1967 war, under threat of withholding billions in annual aid. And I would offer substantial assistence to rebuilding those areas in support of a strong Palestinian state."
I SAY: Good.
YOU SAY: "Yes, I am personally dismayed at the "consolidations" of the media (fewer independent news services), and of the "content provider's" efforts to "copyright for perpetuity" that which should revert to public domain. There are "sound principles" for opposing such efforts in the interest of the public good, and they should be organized as such with rhetoric focused upon these unhealthy manifestations."
I SAY: I agree. I note to you that the Jewish dimensions of the consolidation of the media is profound (one of the worst case examples is Canada's Zionist activist media mogul, Izzy Asper). There are MANY MORE Jewish media moguls on the Israel bandwagon, and we document some of them at Jewish Tribal Review.
YOU SAY:"These trends would be just as disconcerting if any group, cultural, ethnic, or just "rich folk in general" were to succeed at them."
I SAY: Agreed.
YOU SAY: "My concern is that, by labeling them as "Jewish" manifestations or agenda, no matter that they may be the dominant players, acts to suggest that "Jewery itself" must be attacked, and that these unhealthy monopolies might be somehow less of a concern if it were some other group with such power."
I SAY: Again. You herald the scientific method. When underscoring some investigation, do you categorically expunge some element of your inquiry for fear of where it might lead? The good scientist goes in the other direction. He/she investigates everything at length, puts it all out on the table, and THEN decides its meaning. A good scientist does not reject anything until the investigation is complete. My sense is that you, like virtually all others, know virtually nothing about the details of Jewish influence in America. Because it is a pathologized, "forbidden" topic of investigation. You, like us all, are programmed to self-censor, to excuse Jewish dominance away.
Per Jews. We have in this country a Jewish hegemony in the American cultural and political world. We have researched this at length, and our web site documents it. This is NOT a healthy situation, for anyone. Including Jews. Want to do them a favor? Get THEM talking about their hegemony. Get them talking about sharing power.
YOU SAY: "Most of all, my objection was targeted at the characterization of dispassionate "intellectualism" as evidence of one having fallen under a spell crafted specifically by Jews as part of their world domination agenda."
I SAY: There IS a Jewish agenda. It is ethnocenthric. It is chauvinist. My God, look at the irrational road America is taking in defense of Israel today? There's no oil in Israel. Why do we cherish Israeli/Jewish racism so much? And this Judeocentrism permeates our entire culture, as championed by tons of Judeo-centrists, including many in the "intelligentsia" realm. The "neo-cons" of the right (bomb Iraq into the ground) are spearheaded by folks like Irving Kristol. Perle, as I call, has been a university professor).
I don't think my position is that hard to grasp. Turn EVERYTHING upside down. Put a Palestinian into every Jewish power slot, where Palestinians dominate the mass media, pornography, U.S. foreign policy, modern art, the intelligentsia, the publishing world, etc. I think JEWS would be the FIRST in line to champion my sort of criticism: "My God! There are too many Palestinians in power!" Do you think Jews would be running around saying, "No, no. It's not fair to say the "Palestinain" word, because not all Palestinians think the same." NO WAY. Think about it. Search your soul. We have been suckered/socialized. You -- like us all -- will bend over backwards to defend the Jews, orotect them from unfair "generalizations," yet put "Palestinians" or "Muslims" in the equivilant Jewish power slots, and you're going to get very, very uncomfortable with what you've been saying to me.
YOU SAY: "An old friend of mine lives in Arizona. He is a blond-haired, blue-eyed Bakersfield boy, his wife is Jewish, and they raise their kids with observations of Jewish traditional holiday activities. They are both industrious and resourceful people. If his wife were to get an advanced degree, start a successful business, and become "prominent" in the community, I cannot see that she should be penalized, investigated, or otherwise tarred with the brush of being yet another example of conspiratorial Jewish powerhood."
I SAY: To the degree that this couple herald the usual Jewish conventions, I think it fair to criticize them. Why not? But again, you keep shielding Jewry from "investigation," as if Big Brother is on their case. Big Brother is looking in the other direction, at anyone who dares to criticize the racist, ethnocentrism of the Jewish power elite. Why are you so interested in protecting this couple' hypothetical rights when there are rights to be protected in the REAL world: those right that hold any individual or community responbile for its beliefs and actions.
YOU SAY: "We should not equate, nor punish "justifiable success" as a substitute for addressing "unjustifiable excess"."
I SAY: "Justifiable success"? Would you deny that the road to "success" is intricately entwined with "networks," which is to rephrase the old adage: "It's not what you know but who you know?"
Therein lies the road to power. And therein lies the door that the good scientist must open in the investigation of social, political, and cultural influence. When was the last time you heard of a Arab pundit taking an anchor seat on CNN, or an Arab getting a major exhibition at the Judeo-centric Museum of Modern Art, or SOMEONE WHO CRITICIZES ISRAEL getting ANYTHING, ANYWHERE? In contradistinction, when Wolf Blitzer (a Jewish anchor at CNN and a former editor for the house organ at AIPAC -- the pro-Israel lobbying organization) tells you what happened today, is it totally irrelevant that he is Jewish?
YOU SAY: "Focus the investigations upon "bad acts, unhealthy and unjust behaviors", as opposed to focusing upon a religious/ethnic/tribal identity as a default "perpetrator class", and let the chips fall where they may. I'd be happy to see changes made, believe me. "
I SAY: Leaving an ethnic power elite to its own devices, and "letting the chips fall where they may," is a recipe for disaster. Is this your attitude about the "white" slavery system over African-Americans? (Let nature take its course). Do you not realize that Jewish (spelled J-E-W-I-S-H) political activism was central in the overthrowal of the "WASP establishment?" There is our model for the disestablishment of Jewish hegemony, racism, and war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: ill get my coat
|
|
|
|
Pootank, YOU SAID: "damn my ablity to spell lol this my last comment... can u tell me in about a screens worth of text why u dislike the jewish people so much and wot should be do to stop wot "they" r doing? *without* any links to ur website plz? (i retract my comment about u being a *rastist/racist* as well my apologies it was a bit rash)
I SAY: Can you distill your philosophy about something you've studied for years to a "screen's worth," and do justice to it? Is it necessary that profoundly complex information be condensed into a single noodle on a 5X5 inch plate, for one swallow? Do lawyers, in arguing their cases, get three sentences?
It is infinitely easier for you to dismiss three sentences, denuded of all historical evidence, than it is to engage me in in-depth debate about one of the most important socio-political currents in our time.
Nonetheless (not to totally drive you away in a funk), in a nutshell: Jews control too much. This power is not an expression of a true multiethnic democracy or a fair "multiculturalism." ANY power elite is subject to critical scrutiny: this is just and natural, throughout HISTORY it has always been so, sooner or later. To forbid critical inqury into ANY power elite is -- however it is configured -- in fact censorship. Jews are leading us to endless war and world catastrophe with their omnipresent lobbying for the belligerent Israeli state. We need to retool the course of our socio-political system to a fair balance of power among contesting ethnicities; the current Judeocentric climate is democratic fraud. And, very importantly, people like you are quick to condemn these just, moral goals as "racism" and/or "antisemitism." You, like most people, are the result of a socialization process (whether you are Jewish or not) which demands that the Jewish community, as a tribal collective, is beyond criticism. Jews are America's "sacred cows," completely beyond reproach (even as they scurry everywhere about in political activism towards ethnocentric goals), and more and more people are getting sick of this.
So what doesn't make sense to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmm.....
Purpose is a product of society, not nature. Methinks there no logical answer to a question as flawed as this.
Well said. The rest was a bit hostile, but I agree with the gist of it.
As for the "American-bashing", as you put it: I am merely stating that the reason RELIGION is so important to most Americans is because they are "sitting around waiting to be told what to do."
Not that it matters, but I suspect Ribald wonders if you are American or not, Kulu...and I must admit the question crossed my mind for a moment, too.
It does come off as bashing America, whether it was intended or not. At least to me (yes, I'm American). I don't know that I'd completely disagree, but then I would say the statement holds true for most people regardless of nationality or ethnicity or even religion.
One must grant, of course, that the topic is "Why is religion so important to most Americans...", so maybe we're just being testy and defensive.
May we all be fitter, happier, and more productive. Even those intellectuals hiding in ivory towers (at least they aren't fooled by religion, though, huh?).
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
We ARE the most powerful nation on the planet, so we must not be all that terribly incompetent.
Competence has no relevance on the matter.
"sitting around waiting to be told what to do."
I realize that I am making a gross generalization with this comment.
***
If we can get a good working definition of intellectual religion, I think they can not only co-exist, but carry on a symbiotic relationship:
Pre-logic, humankind invents religion to explain the mysteries of the known universe. This involves the basics: sun, moon, wind, fire, etc. Man has no other resource for explaining these other than himself. He explains the movements of the known universe on super-human actions by super-human gods (In other words: Man creates gods in his image and the images of the nature around him).
Fast-forward 4,000-5,000 years...enter modern man. Using science & logic, he can calculate, predict and manipulate his known universe. He knows that there still exist super-human actions (gravity, electromagnetics, etc.) but no longer attributesd them to gods.
Thusly, if humankind can relieve itself of a personified god for one of science and logic, could science and religion become one in the same? Could scientist and clergy assimilate just as Mendel did? Why not intellectual religion?
Fitter, Happier and More Productive...
cp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
I just completed a new addition to the "Fatal Flaw of AI" regarding how religion is creeping into scientific endeavors. I subsequently found this relevant notice written by you a month ago.
Both computer scientist and neuroscientist tackle the microscopic (eg. synaptic plasticity).
Our knowledge of synaptic function and its relation to behavior is abysmal. However, the big picture is displayed in what is referred to as human nature, or, more appropriately, human nature's (Ehrlich).
Belief of a "higher power" must be hardwired in the human brain because every society that presently exist, as well as those that we know of that are extinct, exhibit such behavior.
Wilson, in "Conscilience", suggest that this is a result of 60 million years of primate evolution that led to homo sapiens. Such extinct primates, and homo sapiens as well, evolved in a hierchical social structure ruled by one dominant male. It is not a far leap from this situation to the abstract notion of a metaphysical counterpart. Freud elaborated on this topic in "Moses and Monotheism."
Evolutionary psychologist have shown the benefits of consciousness in social groups allowing the implimentation of sophisticated social stratagies, including advanced planning, flattery and deceit.
The great benefit of extended consciousness and its relation to such metaphysical concepts is obvious. The belief in a superior being is perfect for displacing ones concerns related to "the meaning of life" and "why bad things happen to good people" and "why we are here and where are we going" etc.
Therefore, religion is consolidated into the brain (ie. human nature) as the ultimate in simplicity and efficiency in dealing with life. No effort is expended on these unanswerable questions, so the individual can go about solving the "real questions". These are "where do I get my next meal, avoid danger, find shelter as well as someone to mate with".
I think Darwin would agree since it avoids detractions from these evolutionary goals.
There has been an increase in scientist who hold religious beliefs lately, largely because of the failure to find a scientific basis of consciousness and the mistaken dualism associated with "emergence" in contemporary scientific thoughts of consciousness.
Reductionism was king and etiology (assigning a conscious reason for all biological functions) the devil when I was in training thirty decades ago. Now the reverse is true. Reductionist are very rare, and they often put stipulations on it's definition. Etiology is in vogue, implying an exterior causitive agent, because "the most brilliant minds" have not succeded in defining mechanisms related to consciousness, memory and higher cognition.
Recent comments generated in Kurzweil AI.net indicate this dogmatic view is alive and thriving among computer scientist as well.
OK - let's just determine the physical nature of consciousness and then go about our business. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Etiology is in vogue, implying an exterior causitive agent, because "the most brilliant minds" have not succeded in defining mechanisms related to consciousness, memory and higher cognition.
David Chalmers, for example, and most others in this area, atill believe in the "causal-closed' - ness of mathematically described physical reality. I'm not quite sure which view you find to be "en vogue". If you are interested to discuss a view which goe further than Chalmer's, you might like to comment on my homepage http://www.occean.com .
Concerning labratory work, I think the question is what you want to study exactly. If you are interested mostly in the processes of information processing, you might be fine with classical materialism as a metaphysical background, at least for the near future of a few decades. If you are interested in consciouss experience, qualia, seeing colors as a conscious experience, you might have difficutly even formulating the goal of your study in mathematical-physical or mathematical-biological terms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Though an Atheist myself, Iwould point out that many "outside the box" intelectuals remained religous, people like Darwin or newton.
I think that the answer is much simpler, people in many matters are a product of thier surroundings, a child who is brought up in a religous family in a religous community is far more likly to become a religous person regardless of their mental capacity.
I also think (comclusion drawn from personal experiance which is rather limited) that one group of thinkers geeks with whom i socialise with have a mindset that seeks to quantify thier surrounding's, concepts of , "no one entity could create and manage all that stuff" and if god is compassion where is he when x, y, z happens trying to apply reason to an entity that is according to most organised religion beyond human reasoning. Though I don;t think that this comes from a presumption that they (geek's) are in some way as smart as god (or god's), I can see how comments like god couldent have made that shot or I am god. Athough made out of jest do trivialise religion.
I guess when you take the idea of all powerfull god / god's out of the picture by not believing them people of faith do look rather on the surface of the matter, to be doing as told and not questioning the fact's.
still that is only my small opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
I think the important message here is not whether one should believe or disbelieve, but to make that decision for yourself. Essentially, I know plenty of intellecutals who lack perspective and dont believe in religion because that is what people who "think" do. Unfortunately, these people are just as bad as the die-hard evangalist's. Personally, I'm not interested in trying to save or covert anyone; however, if I can make someone think and use his/her brain, I will be satisfied.
As far as those who don't think religion is important, I look at the recent election. Right or wrong I think one of the Democrats downfalls was their in ability to associate with religious people (or at least the Evangalists who made sure people voted Bush). Needless to say, so long as a portion of the population believes in religion than it is important, if for no other reason, because they can sway the vote one way or another.
Maddhatter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Accepting the bias of this question as a flawed generalization, I will respond with an equally flawed, but hopefully useful generalization. This is, after all, how we model reality.
I suspect that the real issue here is the nature and definition of egos. "Intellectuals" tend to have very strong, well developed senses of self as individuals. To them, it matters very little what their "tribe" thinks. They deem themselves to be smarter than the tribe. Such strongly defined individuals naturally tend to reject God because God competes with them regarding the nature and independence of their thinking.
"Americans" consider God to be important. For the sake of this response, I will define "Americans" as average individuals in the middle of the bell curve for intellectual and emotional cognition. The people in this group tend to base much more of their identities on membership in one or more "tribes". They identify strongly with their nationality, and often their church. When their "nation tribe" starts being perceived as less than righteous, as happened with the United States during and after Vietnam, a need to wash one's self and become righteous exerts more pressure on these individuals. The American government can't be fixed and made righteous because these "Americans" only have the illusion that they can make changes. Real power lies elsewhere. The only viable alternitive is for the members of the "American Tribe" to join another tribe, namely a religious organization. Say that you give yourself to Jesus and your sins are forgiven. This is magical. You now have divorced yourself from the guilt associated with being a citizen of an unrighteous country while maintaining your identity as a member of that "tribe".
If you get the people in the "religious tribe" to exert pressure regarding a couple of socially trivial issues such as stopping overt homosexuality and banning legal abortions, you can energize this "tribe" to be the cause of repentance and even salvation of their unrighteous nation tribe.
I have noticed that the higher the individual intellect, the less the likelihood that the individual will tie his identity to that of a group. However, if significant increases to human intelligence are to happen, these changes must occur at the tribal area rather than on just an individual level. After the tribes or nations become more intelligent in their collective behaviors, then mankind can finally evolve to an intelligence higher than that of an amoeba. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: some call it faith in weird math, some call it theft
|
|
|
|
I challenge your statement that people with religious convictions, of necessity, engage in their beleif systems because it makes them feel good. I know that most people in my congregation suffer large amount of mental anguish because of their faith, and more than a few are persecuted by others as well.
I agree that many of my co-religionists believe blindly. They can be sold (almost) anything. They also should not be allowed to eat in public restaurants without close supervision. I don't think that you have to worry about getting short changed by them though. They will give you the goods that you seek to purchase and your money back as well.
I will not waste time in this space by discussing the various hucksters and televangelists that use such people. They are vile and beneath contempt.
There are some of us there because we use the idea that God exists as an operating premise in order to find out more about ourselves individually and societally. Personally, I would not have been able to see and understand many psychological principles that work in groups engaged in a belief structure without becoming part of that structure. Also, I maintain contact and friendships with people that I otherwise would lose track of. I can also checkmate some of the more abberant behavior and politics practiced by many blind followers. It is worth the trip.
Getting back to your point about adopting a belief simply because it makes me feel good, I want to address the following:
A. Afterlife- if it happens, great (and a whole new set of problems to deal with), but I'm not basing my belief and related actions on this concept. The promise of Heaven is "wait and see" and the concept of hell is too easily used to manipulate people for me to be intimidated by it to the point that I base my actions on that fear.
B. Behavior Modification- regardless of what the glossy tracts telling you to "just surrender to Jesus" say, belief in a religion does require a substantial amount of change in the way most of us relate to one another. From a male perspective, women cease to be mere objects to conquer sexually and either dominated or disposed of. We relate to them as complete human beings. We treat one another fairly and respectfully in our personal and business dealings. Ad-hominem arguments and casual use of epithets (basically , marking your territory)just does'nt hack it.
C. Change of mindset. We no longer look at things from a purely selfish point of view. Putting on the "Mind of God" (not becoming god) forces us to look at the needs of the people that we encounter, and to make those needs a high priority. Do we sacrifice everything for them? Not necessarily, but we include them in our personal equation raether than just brushing them aside per the teachings of Thomas Malthus.
An example of this involves an aircraft losing pressurization at altitude. The oxygen masks come down from the overhead rack. If a mother, holding her baby, gives oxygen to the baby, she passes out, the mask falls from the baby, and they both die. If she takes oxygen first, and then shares it with the baby, both live.
Cheers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: some call it faith in weird math, some call it theft
|
|
|
|
I challenge your statement that people with religious convictions, of necessity, engage in their beleif systems because it makes them feel good.
I didnt say all religious people do that. I said people who do that offend me. I'll add that (proportional to size of each group) more religious people do it than nonreligious.
I know that most people in my congregation suffer large amount of mental anguish because of their faith, and more than a few are persecuted by others as well.
I agree that many of my co-religionists believe blindly. They can be sold (almost) anything. They also should not be allowed to eat in public restaurants without close supervision.
Do you expect everyone else to pay for this supervision? I demand people who use blind-faith pay a stupidity tax to offset this cost.
There are some of us there because we use the idea that God exists as an operating premise in order to find out more about ourselves individually and societally.
Problem is, it might help them feel something beyond physical, but not "god", but since that was their theory, they take that weird feeling as evidence "god" exists. It doesnt matter what their theory is, blind faith always leads to thinking its true.
Personally, I would not have been able to see and understand many psychological principles that work in groups engaged in a belief structure without becoming part of that structure.
Like some zoologists live with monkeys to learn their ways.
B. Behavior Modification- regardless of what the glossy tracts telling you to "just surrender to Jesus" say, belief in a religion does require a substantial amount of change in the way most of us relate to one another.
From a male perspective, women cease to be mere objects to conquer sexually and either dominated or disposed of.
We are still animals, and religion wont change that. Regardless of how much you respect a woman, pussy ass and tits attract just as strongly. People like to pretend they're not animals by wearing clothes, but everybody knows whats under them and can think about anybody naked at any time.
We relate to them as complete human beings. We treat one another fairly and respectfully in our personal and business dealings.
Fairly... like churches paying no tax while I pay higher tax? If you dont agree with the church's beliefs (which include church is better than you so it should pay less tax) the church will try to rip you off, and will of course say its in the name of god.
C. Change of mindset. We no longer look at things from a purely selfish point of view. Putting on the "Mind of God" (not becoming god) forces us to look at the needs of the people that we encounter, and to make those needs a high priority.
Most religions are selfish. What can I do to get ME to heaven? All I have to do is convert some people who dont want to hear my crap? I'll do it!
Do we sacrifice everything for them? Not necessarily, but we include them in our personal equation raether than just brushing them aside per the teachings of Thomas Malthus.
An example of this involves an aircraft losing pressurization at altitude. The oxygen masks come down from the overhead rack. If a mother, holding her baby, gives oxygen to the baby, she passes out, the mask falls from the baby, and they both die. If she takes oxygen first, and then shares it with the baby, both live.
I'd like to see if their religion holds up if theres not enough parachutes and the plane is falling. Some say females first, but that implies females are better than males. But we all know who is certain to get a parachute, the PILOT, the guy who causes the plane to crash. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: some call it faith in weird math, some call it theft
|
|
|
|
>>I challenge your statement that people with religious convictions, of necessity, engage in their beleif systems because it makes them feel good.
>I didnt say all religious people do that. I said people who do that offend me. I'll add that (proportional to size of each group) more religious people do it than nonreligious.
You are probably right about this, but I have seen many individuals who regard science as a religion. In many cases, Their responses are just as emotional and irrational as those of people who hold to more conventional religions.
>.I know that most people in my congregation suffer large amount of mental anguish because of their faith, and more than a few are persecuted by others as well.
>>I agree that many of my co-religionists believe blindly. They can be sold (almost) anything. They also should not be allowed to eat in public restaurants without close supervision.
>Do you expect everyone else to pay for this supervision? I demand people who use blind-faith pay a stupidity tax to offset this cost.
No. I expect the more mature members of the congregatiion to handle these supervisory tasks. Unfortunately, the leadership of many congregations is corrupt and in bed with those who would use religious faith to political ends. The problem is to get the leadrership to become accountable to the original teaching.
Incidentally, how would you administer a "stupidity tax"? Who qualifies? Who determines the criteria for stupidity?
>>There are some of us there because we use the idea that God exists as an operating premise in order to find out more about ourselves individually and societally.
>Problem is, it might help them feel something beyond physical, but not "god", but since that was their theory, they take that weird feeling as evidence "god" exists. It doesnt matter what their theory is, blind faith always leads to thinking its true.
Here you are answering an issue that I did not address. I said that I use the idea that God exists as an operating premise. I made do mention of epiphanies or other religious based emotional experiences. My personal experience suggests that such experiences are usually contraproductive for just about anything but entertainment.
>>Personally, I would not have been able to see and understand many psychological principles that work in groups engaged in a belief structure without becoming part of that structure.
>Like some zoologists live with monkeys to learn their ways.
Or like some sociologists and anthropologists that live with various types of human groups in order to understand how the societies work. Besides, I am a human, not a monkey (no tail!!)
>>B. Behavior Modification- regardless of what the glossy tracts telling you to "just surrender to Jesus" say, belief in a religion does require a substantial amount of change in the way most of us relate to one another.
From a male perspective, women cease to be mere objects to conquer sexually and either dominated or disposed of.
>We are still animals, and religion wont change that. Regardless of how much you respect a woman, pussy ass and tits attract just as strongly. People like to pretend they're not animals by wearing clothes, but everybody knows whats under them and can think about anybody naked at any time.
Still single aren't you? There is a real person behind those tits and clit. If you are interested, she deserves your full attention, not just your hormones.
>>We relate to them as complete human beings. We treat one another fairly and respectfully in our personal and business dealings.
>Fairly... like churches paying no tax while I pay higher tax? If you dont agree with the church's beliefs (which include church is better than you so it should pay less tax) the church will try to rip you off, and will of course say its in the name of god.
I agree that the churches tax exempt status needs to be changed. However, certain church activities involving service such as operating soup kitchens and disaster relief deserve the same tax free status that their secular counterparts enjoy. Incidentally, pastors and church employees still pay income tax and Social Security.
>>C. Change of mindset. We no longer look at things from a purely selfish point of view. Putting on the "Mind of God" (not becoming god) forces us to look at the needs of the people that we encounter, and to make those needs a high priority.
>Most religions are selfish. What can I do to get ME to heaven? All I have to do is convert some people who dont want to hear my crap? I'll do it!
Because of the way your mind is wired, you are the center of your own universe. The trick is learning that you are not the center of THE universe. Understand what God asks of us (a close reading of Matthew will suffice). Decide if you want to sign on to living out those principles. If yes, you have accepted Him. Evangelism is not a requirement for salvation.
>>Do we sacrifice everything for them? Not necessarily, but we include them in our personal equation rather than just brushing them aside per the teachings of Thomas Malthus.
>>An example of this involves an aircraft losing pressurization at altitude. The oxygen masks come down from the overhead rack. If a mother, holding her baby, gives oxygen to the baby, she passes out, the mask falls from the baby, and they both die. If she takes oxygen first, and then shares it with the baby, both live.
>I'd like to see if their religion holds up if theres not enough parachutes and the plane is falling. Some say females first, but that implies females are better than males. But we all know who is certain to get a parachute, the PILOT, the guy who causes the plane to crash.
Gee! I was talking about a loss of pressurization at altitude and you are all set to have everyone hit the silk. Sounds like a bit of an overreaction to me! Incidentally, all plane crashes are not caused by pilot error. Maintenance and engineering concerns, weather, and air traffic control can all contribute.
The point that I was trying to make is that you cannot help another if you are in as bad a shape or worse that the individual that you want to assist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Religion I believe has always existed only to console us in death, tragedy, and moments of fear. It gives people hope.
When all is lost and we face the finality of death we will grasp at anything that offers hope. When a lion was stalking us (ah, the old days) we asked God, the sun, Zeus or whoever to help us. When the crops were failing and we faced starvation....you get the idea.
So now we are at the point in evolution and intellectual growth, when we know with some certainty that God does not exist but we have no way of living forever. Oh God, what will we do?
Some day we will discover how to make the body live forever. Our medicines will be great. Our technology will be incredibly complex and accepted. It is at that point that death will be by accident. Our challenge then will be to ferret out all of the possible accident scenarios and eliminate them. Will I really have to give up my jet ski?
The hardest thing in all of this is acceptance. In the end, even if it is the end of time, we will cease to exist. The terror of this thought will provoke us to extreme actions at self-preservation (perhaps I'll have my head frozen or worse still, go on the Atkins Diet) but it doesn't matter. The best we can hope for is to die so quickly that we suffer only the shock of change without the shock of realization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
To contribute a constructive thought about this very important topic, that does not get lost in definitions about nationalities and professions I would rephrase the question: Why is a religious faith so important to most humans?
I belief, but cannot prove, that religious faith represents the unknown. What lies beyond the religious individual's current comprehension: Death, Chance, Conciousness, the Edge of their reality..
It derives from a practical need for a theory of everything and a sense of belonging, purpose and direction, which a religious faith can easily and relatively effortlessly provide.
Looking at its long history and the fact that even in our age with the amount of available information religious faith still exists as widely as it does speaks for itself, but does not justify it.
The fact that there are unknowns in our lives does not automatically make the answer a superior power. In fact, based on history and current knowledge, it is a very unlikely explanation at best.
Throughout history previously incomprehensible issues have become dissociated from religious faith as soon as the majority clearly understood them. ie. the Elements, Solar System, Evolution...
But the memory of all those events, even though they are well documented, did not really change the bottom line because there are still vast unknowns and no other equally accessible substitute theories. (except other religious faiths).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why is religion so important to most Americans and so trivial to most intellectuals?
|
|
|
|
Because simple minds when bored start asking questions like, what I'm I doing here, what's the meaning of life, why shouldn't I kill my neighbour and steal his food, then I don't have to work and can entertain the preacher who makes me feel good about myself.
A lonely poet once wrote:
Evolution and Devolution: Two men in the 21st Century.
This is the story of when man outpaced nature,
this is the story when machine became his bodily feature.
That day, this man was no ordinary creature,
that day, this man needed no preacher.
Having eaten he was left to think,
so he thought and thought until needing a stiff drink.
At the edge his need was not to quench a thirst,
for having outpaced nature he wanted to quicken the black heist.
But what of the man having neither machine nor teacher,
that day, this man had to feed the hungry preacher,
that day, this man was like every other creature,
where to find food was his minds only feature.
Tired and hungry,
he wept and then slept.
Dreaming his want was a life of ease,
so that he could entertain the preacher who he so wished to please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
