Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sub_Topical]

I just think that the educated elite throughout history have known a good deal more than it generally seemed and...

You're welcome to believe in whatever, but factually, the educated elite in both Oxford and (Parisian Acadamia I don't care to recall) as recently as the 14th century black plague waves were beating the most educated minds available against since proven entirely wrong logical dead ends, as evidenced in their published works as well as in their private correspondance, in explaining what is now viewed as simple as fleas with a mid-gut bacterial infection (with possible anthrax [murrain at the time] complications in some areas). Man has not ever been 'stupid', he has however been limited mightly in his ability to reason by the limitations of his ability to observe.

[Ben-San]

Certainly the rabbis were not stupid. However, plenty of educated and intelligent people now believe in God. Why wouldn't they have then, if as you say humans are not intellectually different now?

And if you believe God exists and have no way of observing microorganisms, the simplest and most logical cause and effect for "drinking water you pooped in makes you sick" is "God is punishing you for drinking water you pooped in, you sick fuck". It bears up under all standards of testability within the parameters of observation possible with the technology of the time.

If you engage in incest, God visibly punishes your lineage with deformities and sickness. If you eat raw meat, God punishes you with sickness. The cause and effect are observed and without knowledge of recessive genes and microorganisms any explanation is going to be equivalently magical.

It's all well and good if you believe vast amounts of scientific were lost in the Dark Ages that we have no evidence of, but it's an awfully hard road to try to argue as anything other than a Golden Age bias.

[AugustWest]

I would also point out that religion can be a highly effective method of social control, whether or not the religious elite actually believe that direct deistic interference is involved.

Thus the rabbis could notice the correlation between eating certain foods and subsequent gastro-intestinal distress and create the prohibition solely as a means of promoting the health of the population.  This would indicate that the rabbis have a relgious understanding more sophisticated than "God hates people who eat pork," even if promotion of such an idea to the masses is necessary to acheive their dietary aims.

[Ben-San]

I would also point out that religion can be a highly effective method of social control, whether or not the religious elite actually believe that direct deistic interference is involved.

Thus the rabbis could notice the correlation between eating certain foods and subsequent gastro-intestinal distress and create the prohibition solely as a means of promoting the health of the population.  This would indicate that the rabbis have a relgious understanding more sophisticated than "God hates people who eat pork," even if promotion of such an idea to the masses is necessary to acheive their dietary aims.

Sure, they could. But I question whether this is the obvious chain of events to assume. It seems to be predicated on the assumption that "the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe God exists", which is somewhat tenuous, particularly in a situation where education is the province of the religious rather than the secular elite.

[AugustWest]

It seems to be predicated on the assumption that "the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe God exists",

I would say rather that it's predicated on the assumption that "the smarter you are, the more sophisticated your understanding of God is."

[littlefallsmets]

I would say rather that it's predicated on the assumption that "the smarter you are, the more sophisticated your understanding of God is."

Hence my reference between the Big Questions and the small questions.

And, at any rate, I am one of those namby-pamby sorts who rejects organized religion without rejecting the notion of some Higher or Hidden Power. I am prepared for the idea... and even lean toward the idea... of something beyond my small reckoning guiding this whole extended show of horror and beauty.

While I definitely see any use of spirituality in the creation of a social order or power structure as intellectually null and void, a personal one-to-one relationship with/search for a Hidden or Higher Power may well be fruitful or even necessary within the human experience.

But the moment you look to anyone outside yourself to speak for that HoH, well, my distrust of anyone claiming to speak for the HoH upon myself or any mass of people knows no bounds. They either want something out of you or are mad. Or both. Probably both.

If not larger social control then money, if not money then sex, if not sex then to die for them in war, if nothing else the idea that their god will reward them for the handing over of your allegience.

I'm certainly not attempting to paint Searchers as ignorant.

I search, myself, for that magic, for that thermodynamic miracle Dr. Manhattan was looking for.

For that thing Mulder wanted to believe in.

One of my greatest desires is to see something that I know couldn't happen without there being some kind of force behind this all which would suggest a life immortal. I... certainly haven't seen it, is all, and I can't believe in second-hand accounts.

I'm getting off-path, of course, I'm just saying... I never meant to impugn anyone's larger spiritual beliefs.

My cynicism toward organized religion as inherent mental-slavery has nothing to do with the former.

[pmcd9]

I'm one of those "mamby pamby sorts who rejects organized religion without rejecting the notion of some Higher or Hidden Power."  I think hardcore athiest are just as wrong as Christian absolutist.

"Something unknown is doing we know not what is the extent of our knowledge."

~Paul

[AugustWest]

I'm one of those "mamby pamby sorts who rejects organized religion without rejecting the notion of some Higher or Hidden Power." 

Me too.

It's funny.  I pretty fundamentally scorn religion (where religion = a socio-cultural construct  for the shared experience of spirtuality.)  On the other hand, I feel a very deep sense of spirituality and connection to the infinite.  I guess I don't see the need for some other chucklehead to intervene between me and God.  In fact, I don't think it's possible for anyone to come between me and God.

On the other hand,  organized religion is by definition a social experience.  It provides social support in numerous areas, including at least ostensibly on one's spiritual journey.  It would be awfully nice to have a local support network...

Oddly enough I spent much of last night bouncing around Wikipedia looking at articles on different Christian sects and demoninations.  I wasn't really looking for a home as much as wondering about how people define their spiritual beliefs.  What makes someone a General Baptists versus a Primitive Baptist?   What spiritual questions do people feel strong enough about to sever lifelong friendships and family ties in support of doctrinal schisms?  To what extent are so-called doctrinal disputes truly theological in nature as opposed to social or cultural? 

[Ben-San]

I would say rather that it's predicated on the assumption that "the smarter you are, the more sophisticated your understanding of God is."

What's unsophisticated about the idea that God engages in direct action?

I mean, this seems to be the crux of the argument here: this assumption that an intelligent person, faced with the cause and effect of certain behaviors causing disease and the knowledge available at the time, would somehow automatically conclude, with no evidence or information to this effect, that the reason this cause and effect were connected were by means of non-divine agency simply because he is intelligent and therefore must for some reason follow the thought processes of a modern man backed by thousands of extra years of scientific discovery.

[AugustWest]

What's unsophisticated about the idea that God engages in direct action?

Nothing.  What I would suggest is unsophisticated is the idea that God only engages in direct action.

[Turbo Ninja]

Is it possible for God to give Himself junk so huge that even He Himself could not pick himself up by it using one hand?

[Drastic Action]

....and the whole thread is tied together nicely now!  Haha...

[AugustWest]

Turbo Ninja wins the thread.  1 can, 1 closure.