Have We Got Christianity Right?

[Nad]

Material reality is a perspective on reality, its not a complete description of reality, but it serves as a sufficient model for our survival.

I'm not disputing that matter seems to exist and that behaving as if it does is a sufficient model for survival. The problem is when matter is referred to as "real" or when people state that science explains "reality." This is an assumption. As you go on to say:

Our perception of reality which constitutes "material" reality is limited to the percepts afforded us by our evolutionary past. It is not conducive to survival to have direct access to reality, nor is it an epistemic possibility.

I would agree with this statement, and this is the position from which I'm approaching this. I don't see how knowledge of reality or absolute truth is possible for humans given our perceptual limitations. All we have to work with is sense data. From that data, we make all kinds of assumptions about what's real, but for all we know, reality might be entirely different from what we could possibly imagine. Perhaps matter is the illusion, and we are simply an immaterial thought sequence in the non-physical mind of a supernatural deity, or maybe time and causation are the illusions and the reality is that existence is static even though we perceive it moving in a linear fashion, or perhaps our existence is of a nature we cannot even begin comprehend.

I think that this is an important point to grasp because it relegates science, reason, and logic to the realm of the experiential rather than the absolute. For me, while science is a very useful, logical method in helping us make sense of our experience of life, it has nothing to do with reality. Religion isn’t all that different in its intent. It’s a way for people to make meaning out of an existence we don’t understand, and to find meaning in it. Claims of absolute truth, whether scientific or religious, are unfounded assumptions.

Nad

[Animus]

Material reality is a perspective on reality, its not a complete description of reality, but it serves as a sufficient model for our survival.

I'm not disputing that matter seems to exist and that behaving as if it does is a sufficient model for survival. The problem is when matter is referred to as "real" or when people state that science explains "reality." This is an assumption. As you go on to say:

Our perception of reality which constitutes "material" reality is limited to the percepts afforded us by our evolutionary past. It is not conducive to survival to have direct access to reality, nor is it an epistemic possibility.

I would agree with this statement, and this is the position from which I'm approaching this. I don't see how knowledge of reality or absolute truth is possible for humans given our perceptual limitations. All we have to work with is sense data. From that data, we make all kinds of assumptions about what's real, but for all we know, reality might be entirely different from what we could possibly imagine. Perhaps matter is the illusion, and we are simply an immaterial thought sequence in the non-physical mind of a supernatural deity, or maybe time and causation are the illusions and the reality is that existence is static even though we perceive it moving in a linear fashion, or perhaps our existence is of a nature we cannot even begin comprehend.

I think that this is an important point to grasp because it relegates science, reason, and logic to the realm of the experiential rather than the absolute. For me, while science is a very useful, logical method in helping us make sense of our experience of life, it has nothing to do with reality. Religion isn’t all that different in its intent. It’s a way for people to make meaning out of an existence we don’t understand, and to find meaning in it. Claims of absolute truth, whether scientific or religious, are unfounded assumptions.

Nad

This is why I prefer to explain neural dynamics on the functional/causal level of description. The physical nerve cells are just a convenient way of illustrating the causal differentiation and integration that occurs. We can hardly escape the use of symbols in any of our descriptions, but what is of importance is the causal dynamics. The causal level of description is by far the most concrete level of description we have, in its absence we are left with nothing, ignorance.

Symbolism can vary as in the work of Augustine versus Democritus, but logical (read causal) constraints remain consistent. This is why the senses are considered to be inferior or in Democritus' terminology "Bastard". Reason is held upon high, however in the absence of empirical observation it often goes astray. For example the vitalist theory of the heart. William Harvey convinced that vital animal spirits were concocted in the heart -- and dispersed throughout the body in its animation -- dissected the heart to get a glimpse of these spirits. It was then that it was apparent what the heart actually did. Although it can be argued that its empirically obvious that the brain is the executive of the body, "pure" reason led many to believe the heart was the locus of the "soul".

Now, we can say they are both equally valid theories, but the vitalist theory of the heart didn't lead to the development of neuropharmacological treatment or an understanding of cardiac arrest. The vitalist theory proved to be completely inapplicable to empirical reality. Obviously, as has often been said, a bridge builder knows something about building bridges which others do not and hence we go to bridge builders when we need a bridge. It is possible to have knowledge.

To what extent we are able to understand reality depends on the extent we are willing to learn. Knowledge which at first seems illusory can become obvious as we attempt to learn. This is a rather obvious fact, there is no human who does not encounter a cloudiness at first and clarity only after proper recognition. This process can also be demonstrated neurophysiologically. What might seem like illusory or impossible knowledge to you now may become clear and immutable in the future. This is also why I say that I can't prove anything to anyone but myself, I set the criteria for knowledge and I determine what is approved. I have to be independently clear minded and equanimous. This turns out to be an extremely trying task. A key element to success here is non-attachment to any specific doctrine. I have tried to prove to myself time and again that causality is not true and that my conclusions are false, but I have consistently failed. I'm open to new ideas, but it seems clear that the alternative; ignorance, is a damning one.

[Nad]

Yes exactly, from your current perspective, God is non-existent. God is not in your life, except as something which you are rebelling against, a non-existent being.

I don’t observe too many people rebelling against things they don’t believe in. My daughter is seven years old. The other day she asked me: “Is Santa real, or is it the parents who leave gifts under the tree?”

I asked her why she would question Santa’s existence and she said, “Because I’ve never actually seen Santa, and besides, I’ve noticed that all the gifts he’s given me say, ‘Made in China’ on the tags. They should read, ‘Made in the North Pole.’"

I think she’s a little disappointed to learn that Santa hasn’t really been brining her gifts every year, but she’s not throwing out her toys, protesting Christmas, or burning Santa dolls.

It’s been my experience that believers perceive non-believers as rebellious because we simply don’t buy into the institutions that make your rules. I was raised in an extremely strict religion. There was no smoking, drinking, swearing, drugs, sex, etc. allowed in my home growing up, and I lived by the rules when I believed it was God’s will. Once I realized that I didn’t believe in a god anymore, and I had no use for the religious institution that made those rules, I felt no need to follow them. That’s not to say that I do whatever the hell I want, but I live by the rules that I choose to live by.

The nuance and language that you are using belies a deep discontent with the idea of God, this should raise alarm bells in your head. You feel this way for a reason.

I can’t speak for Dejavu, but from my own experience I can say that the idea of god causes me no discontent. In fact, I don’t rule out the possibility that a god might exist, although I don’t know how we’d ever know if one did. That being said, the discontent that a lot of non-believers feel is with religion. Unfortunately, religion is one of those things we like to shove down our children’s throats, mindfucking them before they’re even capable of comprehending these concepts. Shove shit down a person’s throat long enough; they might spit it right back at you.

You do not not possess the intellect to be able to bypass the concepts of religion, you are basically doomed. That's ok though, not everyone is capable of actually connecting with God. It requires a degree of humility and a sophisticated understanding of human nature to which you are not privy.

Clearly, ad hominem fallacies are an excellent way to make your point logically.

Keep on searching through the material world for all the gratification you can get

Good advice.

See if it ever fills the gap.

What gap?

All the sensations and pleasures you can experience are at God's grace, you have been given it all as a gift, by a designer and father which you can't even begin to comprehend the generosity and love of.

Hmmm… never heard that before. Thank you for the deep thoughts.

Take it all, it's a gift. Show a bit of gratitude, and you might find the pleasure multiplying intensely.

Get your mind out of the gutter…. On second thought, how much do you charge?

Nad

[Is.]

"[...] and besides, I’ve noticed that all the gifts he’s given me say, ‘Made in China’ on the tags. They should read, ‘Made in the North Pole.’"

HAH! Smart kid. A genius in the making? :P

[Blair]

On second thought, how much do you charge?

Nothing dipshit, it's true Wisdom, it's all free.

I won't labor the point, since I am God in human form.

Love me if you can. I promise to love you back. Even through Cancer, which you created.

[Carl G]

I don’t observe too many people rebelling against things they don’t believe in. My daughter is seven years old. The other day she asked me: “Is Santa real, or is it the parents who leave gifts under the tree?”

I asked her why she would question Santa’s existence and she said, “Because I’ve never actually seen Santa, and besides, I’ve noticed that all the gifts he’s given me say, ‘Made in China’ on the tags. They should read, ‘Made in the North Pole.’"

I think she’s a little disappointed to learn that Santa hasn’t really been brining her gifts every year, but she’s not throwing out her toys, protesting Christmas, or burning Santa dolls.

The rebellion against something one doesn't believe in is in not believing. Not believing in Santa does not obviate Christmas itself, or the toys one's parents gave us, or the persecution of dolls representing the sham idea. That would be....childish. No, all that is required by a sane person is repudiation of the sham idea. In this case it is the integrity of the parents. The integrity of the parents is the sham, in that they conspired to lie to the child. I wouldn't blame her for being "a little disappointed" for that. And who knows, it may subconsciously fuel her rebellion against her parents ten years from now!

It’s been my experience that believers perceive non-believers as rebellious because we simply don’t buy into the institutions that make your rules. I was raised in an extremely strict religion. There was no smoking, drinking, swearing, drugs, sex, etc. allowed in my home growing up,

How about lying? Did your parents foist upon you the Santa lie?

and I lived by the rules when I believed it was God’s will. Once I realized that I didn’t believe in a god anymore, and I had no use for the religious institution that made those rules, I felt no need to follow them. That’s not to say that I do whatever the hell I want, but I live by the rules that I choose to live by.

And those rules include it being okay to repeatedly lie to small children, if not about God, then about Santa?

[Carmel]

Animus:
Our perception of reality which constitutes "material" reality is limited to the percepts afforded us by our evolutionary past. It is not conducive to survival to have direct access to reality, nor is it an epistemic possibility.

Nad:
I would agree with this statement, and this is the position from which I'm approaching this. I don't see how knowledge of reality or absolute truth is possible for humans given our perceptual limitations. All we have to work with is sense data. From that data, we make all kinds of assumptions about what's real, but for all we know, reality might be entirely different from what we could possibly imagine. Perhaps matter is the illusion, and we are simply an immaterial thought sequence in the non-physical mind of a supernatural deity, or maybe time and causation are the illusions and the reality is that existence is static even though we perceive it moving in a linear fashion, or perhaps our existence is of a nature we cannot even begin comprehend.

Carmel:
Great discussion.
...I agree with this.

I think our biology inherently limits our view of "reality". There's no way we could know all of what's "real" beyond what our neurological system relays to our brain.

I learned in an anatomy class about the Reticular activating system(RAS), a diffuse mechanism in the brain which regulates sleep patterns. The professor explained that it also acts as a filter of external stimuli and that 90% of stimuli is filtered through it, what we actually perceive only constitutes 10% of "reality". In short, The RAS prevents us from going insane from too much extra sensory input.

The RAS in schizophrenics may be structured differently than in most people, according to some researchers. They may actually be experiencing more "reality"(?) than others, along with their "delusions"(?).

I'd speculate that hallucinogenics might affect the RAS, as well.

[Carmel]

prince:
Nothing dipshit, it's true Wisdom, it's all free.

Carmel:
Must you insist on calling people "dipshits"?

prince:
Love me if you can. I promise to love you back. Even through Cancer, which you created.

Carmel:
I'll love you, prince.

[Carmel]

dejavu:
...With witchcraft perhaps, or even just love. I'm open to suggestions.

Carmel:
lol!

I'll try love first, then if that doesn't work, well, I don't know any witchcraft, just a bit of voodoo. Does anybody know where I can get a hold of an "eye of a newt"?

dejavu:
Carmel, hallucinogens do affect the RAS.

Carmel:
Ah, yes, thank you. That correlation occured to me during the lecture, but I didn't want to ask the professor for fear of incriminating myself.

[Tomas]

.


-dejavu-
The moderators here like to tiptoe around prince and occasionally wipe his arse for him. I have no idea why.

-tomas-
We are the moderators and he fits his adult Pampers just fine. Now, you know why.


-dejavu-
I am not one of those sucks that calls for the banning of people, nor am I one of those who ignore him completely (you must love me for that at least prince).

-tomas-
Then, your option is to hit the "foe" button, that way he's outta sight, outta mind (and no love lost).


-dejavu-
Prince needs his clock cleaned now and again, it's not enough just to wind him up.

-tomas-
He's (an oldtimer here and) takes his breaks from the forum when he needs to.


-dejavu-
Now that he has declared himself "God in human form" it might be fun to waste him a little.

-tomas-
What's to disagree with his statement? .. so am I "God in human form."


-dejavu-
With witchcraft perhaps, or even just love. I'm open to suggestions.

-tomas-
Look, Cyclops, the Tom Cruise look is old already...

[Tomas]

.


-dejavu-
prince is a moderator?! lol

-tomas-
This is a self-moderating forum.


-dejavu-
Like the people he decides to call dipshits right?

-tomas-
Pffft! Wear it as a badge of honor ;-/


-dejavu-
As though the length of time he's been here has any bearing on this whatsoever.

-tomas-
Of course the length of time matters. One gets a feel for their inner workings. What makes them tick.


-dejavu-
Maybe you should have a look at the rest of his statements.

-tomas-
Been there, done that. We signed on here the same year (2005) though I've been reading since 2001. Dunno how long for he.

-dejavu-
prince is a big boy, why don't you let him handle this?

-tomas-
Payback. Leyla's been itchin' to get back at me. She's really hot, you know? Anyways, you stepped in on Pye's Political thread. I haven't decided whether sniffing Leyla's bait is a masculine move, or not. We'll see.

For some reason, I've this picture of prince (the Australian) being about 5'5", black horn-rim glasses, pot gut, smokes like a chimney, and drinks beer at the same pub as Dan Rowden. They're mates, you know?

Anyways, he'll handle his snit when he's good and ready.........

[Tomas]

Pffft! Wear it as a badge of honor ;-/

prince doesn't call me dipshit, he calls me brother. He thinks me lost and wants me to give myself to god.

-tomas-
Of course the length of time matters. One gets a feel for their inner workings. What makes them tick.

I've been here always, not as dejavu of course. I was here when this place started. I was also briefly at the board which preceded it. The only thing that's happened to prince is that now he preaches about god. In every other respect he's the same ugly parasitic personality he's always been.

But we're going to change him, he's going to respond positively to the love Carmel and I will bestow upon him.

Hokay...... Sweet ;-)

[Nad]

The rebellion against something one doesn't believe in is in not believing.

Let me get this straight. I tell you that an invisible magical spiderfrog lives on Titan and that he wants everyone to worship him. If you do he'll wrap you lovingly forever in his harmonious web, but if you don't he'll zap you with his invisible sticky tongue and devour you like a fly. If you say, "Uh yeah, I want some of what you're smoking, moron." Does that mean you're rebelling against the almighty Spiderfrog? LOL

Believers often perceive non-believers as rebellious, but only because we don't feel the need to live by your arbitrary rules. Who gave you authority to make the rules in the first place?

The rest of your post on the Santa lie is merely a red herring that has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to discuss Santa, start a new thread. Don't hijack this one.

Nad

[Animus]

“Men are not punished for their sins, but by them.” - Elbert Hubbard

~ Every sin brings its punishment with it. ~ - Romanian Proverb

The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed but that he cannot believe anyone else.
- George Bernard Shaw


The "sins" of envy, pride, sloth, gluttony, etc... have direct recursive psychological effects on the "sinner". This is something almost completely overlooked in modern consumerist societies.

There is an ancient saying "Whatever you own, owns you". This could not be any truer, we find identity in our possessions, so by consumption (gluttony) we puff ourselves up to unrealistic proportions only to be cut down by the perishing of the very things our identities rest on.

The "sins" are sins because of the psychological dynamics that ensue, and these can be gleaned by experience or a good study of modern psychology.

[Animus]

This is in-line with the view of God as inseparable from the universe/reality. The punishment exacted by God is identical to the recursive psychological effects of "sinning"; despair.

[Animus]

There is an ancient saying "Whatever you own, owns you". This could not be any truer, we find identity in our possessions, so by consumption (gluttony) we puff ourselves up to unrealistic proportions only to be cut down by the perishing of the very things our identities rest on.

This can also be put neurophysiologically in terms of the dopaminergic reward system. To use a paradigmatic example of studies in this area, I will look at what is called the Compensatory Response of conditioned stimuli, namely drugs.

In a famous experiment conducted by the Russian behaviourist Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov showed that a dog's salivation could be conditioned to the sound of a bell. In effect, the Dog's compensatory response (salivation) to a food stimulus was conditioned to the bell instead. For the purpose of this post what is important is that conditioning of this sort does occur.

In what is now an accepted theory in psychology, called Conditioning of a Compensatory Response to Drugs, the drug addict, for example heroin, who regularly uses at home will be conditioned to his home environment (e.g. furniture). That is, the home environment will act as a conditioned stimulus (i.e. bell in Pavlov's experiment) which causes a compensatory response to the consumption of the drug (heroin). This serves to bring about a withdrawl symptom as well, as the body attempts to compensate for a non-existent substance. This compensatory response serves to reduce the "High" of the drug-taker, as his body has began compensating for the drug. This compounds as the drug-taker attempts to achieve higher highs by ingesting more of the substance. The body learns to compensate for the extra dosage. As illustrated by the frequency of overdose in novel environments, in the absence of conditioned environmental stimuli the compensatory response does not occur. Often drug-takers will consume their regular dosage in novel environments, in absence of the conditioned compensatory response this leads to overdose. The drug-takers body is not prepared, as usual, for the increased dosage and cannot compensate for it.

So, how does this relate to desire and possession. Well there are a few obvious things to note about desire from the start. The first is that desire arises from a lack, and it can only occur (as pertains material goods) with a knowledge of the thing desired. That is to say that I may desire to purchase Rock Band 3, but only as a result of Rock Band 3's creation and availability and above all my knowledge of it. Ten years ago I had no such desire for any such game, as I never even perceived the possibility of it.

Then, since we are aware of a desired object, we seek to consume said object. Upon consumption our desire is satiated as dopamine courses our brains. Except now the object has become the source of some withdrawl as our dopaminergic system learns to expect it. Simultaneously it loses it's desirable qualities, as we compensate for (habituate to) the object. Post-habituation the object or substance, whatever it is, feels to us to be more of a necessity than an object of simple desire. Stripped of its availability we feel withdrawl or as is metaphorically stated "a loss of identity".

I've already given an example of a popular Rock Band game. Now consider this dynamic unfolding with cars, lovers, clothing, etc... Another certainty to be stated is that the game will eventually wear down and perish. We are in effect, setting ourselves up for loss, for suffering.

Now, this did happen to me, I've torn through 3 drum sets and 4 guitars for Rock Band and Guitar Hero combined, and each time I find myself at a store purchasing another one. At present I've invested upwards of $2,500 on rhythm games. It is not as easy to break out of a habit as it is to avoid getting into one.

This is just to illustrate the intrinsic suffering associated with desire, which by extension makes "gluttoney" itself undesirable. There are like explanations for all of the other so-called "sins".

[Blair]

.
For some reason, I've this picture of prince (the Australian) being about 5'5", black horn-rim glasses, pot gut, smokes like a chimney, and drinks beer at the same pub as Dan Rowden. They're mates, you know?

lol. Nope. I'm 6"1, don't wear glasses, don't have a pot-gut, Do smoke though, and drink beer, but not with Dan. I would have drinks with him though, but I don't think we would be mates, since you know, he's an atheist and all. And would deny God out of his nostrils.

[Animus]

Well, I just finished reading Erich Fromm's You Shall Be As Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and its Tradition. Fromm writes a good book and brings up several points which I have stumbled upon myself and have also tried to communicate with theists and atheists alike. Fromm, as do I, refers to himself as a "nontheist".

Fromm argues that the God-concept is an antidote to the idolatry of the world. God is not given a name, but YHWH which means "Nameless" (or sometimes translated as "I am"). The "Messianic Age" however, will not come until Man realizes his dependence on idols (including "God"). Throughout the Old Testament God is implicitly given various attributes (through anthropomorphism), but explicitly is given no attributes. Fromm draws the same conclusion I have: the Bible is written - in part - to appeal to philosophically inept individuals by appealing to their basic desire for submission/idolatry and their narcissism by impressing them with an image of God made to look like them (anthropomorphism) but also contains an antidote if the individuals are willing enough to take it.


Here are a few excerpts from You Shall Be As Gods:

"An idol represents the object of man's central passion: the desire to return to the soil-mother, the craving for possession, power, fame, and so forth. The passion represented by the idol is, at the same time, the supreme value within man's system of values. Only a history of idolatry could enumerate the hundreds of idols and analyze which human passions and desires they represent. May it suffice to say that the history of idol worship, from the primitive idols of clay and wood to the modern idols of state, the leader, production and consumption--sanctified by the blessing of an idolized God.

Man transfers his own passions and qualities to the idol. The more he impoverishes himself, the greater and stronger becomes the idol. The idol is the alienated form of man's experience of himself.* In worshiping the idol, man worships himself. But this self is a partial, limited aspect of man: his intelligence, his physical strength, power, fame, and so on. By indentifying himself with a partial aspect of himself, man limits himself to this aspect; he loses his totality as a human being and ceases to grow. He is dependent on the idol, since only in submission to the idol does he find the shadow, although not the substance, of himself." - Erich Fromm; You Shall Be As Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament - pp 43 - 44

"Once idols were animals, trees, stars, figures of men women. They were called Baal or Astarte and known by thousands of other names. Today they are called honor, flag, state, mother, family, fame, production, consumption, and many other names. But because the official object of worship is God, the idols of today are not recognized for what they are--the real objects of man's worship. Hence we need an "idology" that would examine the effective idols of any given period, the kind of worship they have been offered, the sacrifices man has brought them, how they have been syncretized with the worship of God, and how God himself has become one of the idols--in fact, often the highest idol who gives his blessing to the others."- Erich Fromm; You Shall Be As Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament - pp 47 - 48

"It seems to me the statement "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" is to be understood in terms of the belief that all necessary events are events not only predicated, but caused by God. Any act that will necessarily happen is God's will. Hence, when God says that he will harden Pharaoh's heart, he is announcing that Pharaoh's heart will unavoidably harden. And indeed, the biblical text that follows seems to confirm this, because it says many times that "Pharaoh hardened his heart." In other words, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" and "Pharaoh hardens his heart" mean the same thing." - Erich Fromm; You Shall Be As Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament - pp 100 - 101

Excerpt from Fromm's footnotes on the preceding paragraph:

"But Abraham ibn Ezra assumes that man always has the freedom to rise above fate, even though fate is described here in terms of God's intention, that is, the law of cause and effect."

[Animus]

I'm still waiting on Kierkegaard's Training in Christianity... it's been 9 days since it was shipped :/

But it's guaranteed to be a good read from what I've read on Quinn's page.

[guest_of_logic]

Like Nad and others, I've been struck by inconsistencies in the doctrine of mainstream Christianity, and I wrote an essay last year proposing a minimal set of adjustments that might be made to mainstream Christian doctrine to correct a few of the problems that I've noticed; that essay seems to be relevant to this thread: Some philosophical problems with Christianity, and a proposed solution. It could do with a bit of updating to clarify and improve both the writing and the content, but I haven't gotten around to that yet - hopefully you'll find value in it as it is.