I have not found an hypothesis that the body of Jesus was the only begotten Son of God to be evident or necessary to my moral philosophy. So I have no belief concerning it. What I do believe is that a spiritual, inviting, caring, and reconciling essence blessed and inhabited the body of Jesus as no other, since or before. I think the exemplar of Jesus, whether through Him or His story, helps save the better in-form-ation of our nature. I believe we are in a steady spiritual state for serving and fulfilling the Godhead. Not all in-form-ation is preserved to that status. To the extent we, in our prayers and energies, believe in an inviting, caring Godhead, as exampled by Jesus, we tend to produce and fulfill a better unfoldment of civilization.
In pure fact, no one is an atheist because there is no pure understanding of what constitutes atheism. There are, however, relational stances of atheism. For them, whether one identifies as an atheist depends on how they identify God.
In relation to a postulated Giant Spaghetti Monster, I am an atheist. In respect of a belief in a hereafter of harps, halos, and perpetual choirs, and many other beliefs, I am a strong agnostic. I simply do not find such beliefs to be evidentiary or necessary.
I do not think it especially helpful to try to put people in rigorous statistical boxes on matters of spiritual belief or mores. After all, their feelings about their beliefs may change several times every day. Or be affected by unfolding circumstances and news. Traumatic events may suddenly change many minds.
For example, I have not found an hypothesis that the body of Jesus was the only begotten Son of God to be evident or necessary to my moral philosophy. So I have no belief concerning that point. Does that mean I am not a Christian? Well, to some, yes. To me, no.
***************************
What I do believe is that a spiritual, inviting, caring, and reconciling essence blessed and inhabited the body of Jesus as no other, since or before. I think the exemplar of Jesus, whether through Him or His story, helps save the better in-form-ation of our nature. I believe we are in a steady spiritual state for serving and fulfilling the Godhead. Not all in-form-ation is preserved to that status.
Moreover, to the extent we, in our prayers and energies, believe in an inviting, caring Godhead, as exampled by Jesus, we tend to "put flesh on" that belief and make it so. Thus, I believe we tend to produce and fulfill a better unfoldment of civilization.
******************
Materialists pooh pooh such beliefs. Probably because they believe substantively measurable physics is the superior source, of which consciousness and information are only derivatives.
I do not believe that. Rather, I think Substance, Consciousness, and Information are co-equal Trinitarian faces of a unitary Godhead.
After all, how can present Substance be the superior, when it immediately passes into the past, as a cumulation of information? How can Information abide, unless it (at least potentially) is inherently informative to consciousness? How can Consciousness signify any communication, unless its communications are founded in the math with which substance is conserved and balanced? Our existentiality is innately Trinitarian, beyond mere Substance.
***********
IAE, to relate as being moral, one needs a moral philosophy. That such philosophy may be necessary does not mean it must be without mental or moral force or effect. After all, what rigorous moral philosophy is entirely consistent, coherent, and complete?
So what may someone mean, when he poses that he, without belief in a godhead, is "as moral as" anyone else? And what is his consistent, coherent, and complete definition for this godhead of which he claims to be atheistic? I suspect many atheists and moralists tend mainly to rationalize in circles for whatever the favored metaphors with which they feel comfortable. As such, apart from dramatic stance, I doubt they shed much empirical or analytical light on "what morality really is." Or on whether they are "as moral as anyone else."
It may be more useful to ask: What manner of philosophy and governance is best suited to establish and sustain a decent and dignified society of free thinking adults? For that, I think a belief in an active principle of caring and inviting reconciliation is essential. Whether a person wants to call that acting principler an "innate law of moral nature" or a "guidance from a godhead" seems not especially important. Either way, the commandment of good faith and good will would still apply. Either way, houses of meditative assimilation and/or contemplative prayer would still be important. The difference would mainly be one of stubborn name calling and metaphor.
So, why do self-godding oligarchs want to banish such meditative good will and contemplative good faith from the public square? I submit it is largely because they want to divide and rule --- unimpeded by the people thinking, meditating, contemplating, and assimilating.
To assimilate the shared values to back a political program, must such atheists share "a religion" or a "real moral standard"? May that depend on how your faith would define religion or real morality?
When such atheists take such a stance, may I be as justified in naming their common value system a religion as they are in saying it is not? If it is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?
I do not appreciate giant spaghetti monster people, either. Which was part of the point. Maybe you're looking to be offended? My point is that, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such. Another point was to question the reliability or meaningfulness of the survey.
Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.
A ruling class need not defend all its progeny. Just those among it that are inclined to want to rule.
Ask: Did the persons favored with membership in the Communist Party really believe in Communism, or did they more likely believe in the "justice" that they should, as elite nomenklatura educated in social scientism, rule the peasants --- "for their own good"?
Among the network of nomenklatura, would not those who already saw their tribe as specially chosen tend to be favored?
Some selective mechanisms seem to apply to tribes generally, not just to Jews --- even though some Jews seem to have become most successful in deploying such mechanisms.
Ask: What cohesive, self-choosing tribe, when placed within a larger society, would not seek to infiltrate its institutions to craft laws, rules, traditions, and social scientism bent to specially protect itself? Some Jews have found ways to pull down so-called Whities, even as they claim as exemption that Jews are not to be classified with Whites.
Such people tend to seek a kind of social salvation by erecting mountains of legalese, affirmatively bent to favor their status. A kind of pump of history seems to push such people, not just Jews, to the top of most of our institutions of law, persuasion, and force. Once there, an obvious way to defend such position is to divide, diversity, and set all other groups against one another --- even as the most favored group tends to decline to assimilate.
This selective mechanism leads to a two class society: Those that are ruled under laws that specially favor the rulers, and those that rule with laws devised to defend their position of power. This, of course, is not quite what America's Founders had in mind.
This is not a problem of genetics. It is a problem of social natural selection. The good thing about natural selection is this: It can be foreseen, and then redirected. IOW, Natural Selection is subject to a feedback process with Guiding Consciousness.
If the communist faith system is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?
***********
Trump is part of the oligarchy/ruling class. He, like they, has a choice. And his choice, unlike theirs, seems to be to try to restore the representative republic.
Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.
Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.
************
********************
Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.
How could a ruling (consistent, coherent, and complete) algorithm ever be subject to human scientific discovery, since every such discovery would necessarily entail an infinite regress of choices in response to it? IOW, each new discovery would upset the previously imagined preset.
I think Nature (Substance) and Consciousness are bound together in a perpetual dance of feedback reconciliation, which accumulates a trailing record of Information. CSI.
************
I see Natural Selection as making sense in respect of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. I don't think particular expressions of matter are preset from the beginning. But I do think that whatever measurably unfolds has to obey the Law of Conservation. Otherwise, equations for trying to balance practical empiricism would be too bizarre to be practical.
That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead. A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker. Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective. I don't think that's preset. I think it's unfolding.
Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others. I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.
As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable. God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.
EDIT: IAE, Jesus wept. The Godhead experiences our pains and joys. That which is reconciled is carried forward, so that its In-form-ation is not lost. If that is cruelty, then it is cruelty by the Godhead to ITself. Just as it is joy to itself. It is what it is, and such is not for me to judge.
If there is a solution, it is not in sending history down the memory hole or in enacting mountains of speech regulations. It is in freeing speech and in restoring respect for the spiritual Reconciler. Better churching, less elitist despotism.
I am not an atheist, but I wonder about dogma. I wonder why, deep down, both atheists and theists are so scared to question their dogma?
After all, no system of thought can give an accounting of the cosmos that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and clear. As the cosmos fluxes, why are so many people so afraid to think about inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their noses?
Not only do some fear going outside safe places for their bodies, but many fear thinking beyond their comfort zones. Maybe they fear they would melt in a pile of inconsistencies? But what gives them any claim to high ground when they arm that fear by trying to block or lock down the thinking of everyone else? This is especially common on some of the religion blogs. Then they wonder why people with high functioning brains stop wasting time with them.
It's obvious what the oligarchy wants. But what do the targeted farm-ees want (or expect), other than to be farmed and not to have to think or be responsible for themselves?
? Do they want a license to loot. To pimp kids. To open borders. To force reverse taxes (reparations), based on percentage of dark blood. To impose race-based guilt quotas. To use law to force people to like certain races and behavioral orientations more than others. To restrict speech so people aren't allowed to hurt the feelings of pc selected gang bangers. To destroy freedom and dignity under the representative republic, to replace it with central diktat of neo-moral-scientisimists. To force a neo-secular religion.
Mostly, it appears they want to be farmed. And ordinary Americans slept while these wannabe farmees were imported, bred, indoctrinated, and rewarded to be the new majority. At this point, it is unclear that any country or culture in the world merits any longer to try to function as a representative republic. They merit to be farmed, and they are hell bent to get farmed.
Sheep do not have to think or be responsible for themselves. They feed on weed and they are sheared as they breed. A few are selected to wear pretty panties.
***************
You seem to want to say what you don't believe, but then decline to say what you do believe that could rationalize your non-belief.
Do you define what you don't believe, or do you simply put everything you have not much thought about in that category? Do you believe in goodness? Do you believe morality is derived only through reason? Do you believe any behaviors are moral, that you have not specifically thought about?
Do you believe the measurable part of the cosmos is entirely the expression of what is measurable? Do you believe the cosmos arose from a split in positive and negative charges of nothingness? Do you believe such belief in nothingness is not a belief in somethingness? Do you believe in an identity for your I-ness? Do you believe your position of atheism is not subject to change, as "you" change?
Is empathy part of your understanding of morality? Do you have a belief with regard to whether some patterns, forms, identities tend innately to seek reinforcement together, with or over others? Do you believe the cosmos as it measurably presents would exist without regard to an observer effect?
When you say you do not believe in God, what is your definition of this god in which you do not believe? (I also do not believe in a giant spaghetti monster god.) However, do you believe in Consciousness, in your "self" and/or others? Do you believe there is some difference in the fundamental nature or character of consciousness, as it applies to yourself versus others?
Do you believe it is important in any moral sense to advance your belief in non-belief, with regard to any reconciling Source for morality or moral purposefulness? Why do you consider your advancement of non-belief in a reconciling Source of Consciousness to be moral? Who (or what) tells you that such advancement is more moral (or as moral) as attempts to advance belief in an empathetic connection among all in-forming perspectives of Consciousness? Do you believe morality entails good faith or good will? Do you not believe in a general goodness?.
I wonder how much of the disputation with so-called atheists is semantics. I think, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such.
Much of disputation consists in trying to define terms so as not to talk past one another. Problem is, there seems to abide no thing that we can reduce to terminology that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and complete. Much of attempts in communication seem to relate to unclear smoke signals. Of what communication there is, it seems to arise with the give and take of some thing beyond what is purely measurable, i.e., what I would term "innate good faith and good will." Godly, because it is innate. I think giving it a name for reference sake can help assimilate decent civilization. If we cannot talk in the public square about what is godly or goodly, I think it less likely we will assimilate decent civilization. And more likely we will fall under the rule of self-godded, oligarchic liars, poseurs, and phony knowitall moral scientisimists.
***************
Well, religious literalism would be replaced by religious figures of speech.
However, figures of speech are helpful for providing common points of reference. Language and communication depend on metaphors. Even the models in science are, ultimately, based in metaphors. They describe what nature and its laws are like, not precisely what they are.
Without religious metaphors, there would be little around which communities could in good faith assimilate.
There can never be scientific evidence for that which is by nature beyond science. The issue is one of good faith. Whether one believes in a general pursuit of goodliness, reconciled with receptivity to a guiding principler.
That which reflects a fundamental belief in its worthiness seems to have an advantage with regard to whether its in-form-ation will propagate and continue. That which does not, will not.
Consciousness is that which appreciates the measured signification of stories through Substance, as it accumulates its record of the Information of measurables that have preceded its present formulations. The Trinity fluxes as C, S, I. C is the upshot of S as it accumulates I. S is I stored for presentation to C. I is the cumulative record of preceding presentations of S to C.
I also do not adhere to biblical literalism. I am a deist ... who believes the Godhead has not left the building. Regardless, I do not approve of persons (law droolers) who pose as perfect mouthpieces of God for the purpose of dictating behavioral rules, out the wazoo. I agree such persons should be exposed. I think the god title is not in itself a bad term. I agree it has been abused. I am more into receptiveness to reflection than to worshipful ceremony.
That said, different people feel differently. I think reflective people of good faith can help moderate them. IAE, I think knowitall pagans, atheists, socialists, communists, and statist moral dictators have contributed to most of the world's suffering. Well, except for the Muslims.
I am not surprised when a person stubbornly rooted in unbelief in godliness or goodliness may fail to see the stubborn dogmatism.
I think your analysis is in some ways too dogmatic. But I agree that religion can often be used to advance un-good. (I had to correct the auto correct to write un-good. I hate auto correct!) I also agree that most intelligent people do not dwell on fear of hell, and that stirring such fear is a favorite method for authoritarian poseurs.
I am not sure what you mean by supernatural. Most people do abide by learned (churched?) codes of behavior, which tend not to be based entirely in science, reason, or logic. If behavioral codes could be so based, we would probably have a better chance to reach worldwide consensus --- under authoritarian moral scientisimists. For myself, I prefer a representative republic over rule under knowitall moral scientisimists.
Atheism is much like any other system for trying to justify belief or disbelief in belief. There are many dogmatic justifications for Christianity, just as there are for atheists.
God and scientists speak to us using the figures of speech, metaphors, and models that are in common use at the time. Those models change and flux, as our system and world changes and fluxes. That's consistent with how language and models change.
At no time could God or science speak to us to convey perfect understanding. From mortal perspective, perfect understanding is simply beyond us.
Your idea of atheism seems stunted. I doubt I will find much reason to join you in your overly simplistic system of circular mind restriction.
I am not an atheist, but I wonder about dogma. I wonder why, deep down, both atheists and theists are so scared to question their dogma?
After all, no system of thought can give an accounting of the cosmos that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and clear. As the cosmos fluxes, why are so many people so afraid to think about inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their noses?
Not only do some fear going outside safe places for their bodies, but many fear thinking beyond their comfort zones. Maybe they fear they would melt in a pile of inconsistencies? But what gives them any claim to high ground when they arm that fear by trying to block or lock down the thinking of everyone else? This is especially common on some of the religion blogs. Then they wonder why people with high functioning brains stop wasting time with them.
I think giving up on an innate aspect of good faith and good will leads to more cruelty. It sacrifices the faith needed to bring people together to assimilate ideals of purpose, decency, dignity, and freedom. It helps to rationalize the depredations of oligarchs as good or necessary. That's why I refer to them as self-godded, godless, and/or godforsaken.
In the usual parlance, natural selection verbiage signals discussion relating to gene frequencies. That said, practices of social selection are part of nature.
I see Natural Selection as making sense in respect of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. I don't think particular expressions of matter are preset from the beginning. But I do think that whatever measurably unfolds has to obey the Law of Conservation. Otherwise, equations for trying to balance practical empiricism would be too bizarre to be practical.
That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead. A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker. Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective. I don't think that's preset. I think it's unfolding.
Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others. I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.
As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable. God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.
EDIT: IAE, Jesus wept. The Godhead experiences our pains and joys. That which is reconciled is carried forward, so that its In-form-ation is not lost. If that is cruelty, then it is cruelty by the Godhead to ITself. Just as it is joy to itself. It is what it is, and such is not for me to judge.
Trump is part of the oligarchy/ruling class. He, like they, has a choice. And his choice, unlike theirs, seems to be to try to restore the representative republic.
I would agree that most of the rest of the oligarchy is trying to take that choice away from him (and us).
You seem to be missing the point. Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.
How could a ruling (consistent, coherent, and complete) algorithm ever be subject to human scientific discovery, since every such discovery would necessarily entail an infinite regress of choices in response to it? IOW, each new discovery would upset the previously imagined preset.
I think Nature (Substance) and Consciousness are bound together in a perpetual dance of feedback reconciliation, which accumulates a trailing record of Information. CSI.
Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.
A ruling class need not defend all its progeny. Just those among it that are inclined to want to rule.
Ask: Did the persons favored with membership in the Communist Party really believe in Communism? Nope. They believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat. They said the dictatorship would someday wither away. What fool thinks they really believed that? More likely, they believed in the "justice" that they should, as elite nomenklatura educated in social scientism, rule the peasants --- "for their own good" --- for as long as it takes (meaning in perpetuity).
Among the network of nomenklatura, would not those who already saw their tribe as specially chosen tend to be favored?
Some selective mechanisms seem to apply to tribes generally, not just to Jews --- even though some Jews seem to have become most successful in deploying such mechanisms.
Ask: What cohesive, self-choosing tribe, when placed within a larger society, would not seek to infiltrate its institutions to craft laws, rules, traditions, and social scientism bent to specially protect itself? Some Jews have found ways to pull down so-called Whities, even as they claim as exemption that Jews are not to be classified with Whites.
Such people tend to seek a kind of social salvation by erecting mountains of legalese, affirmatively bent to favor their status. A kind of pump of history seems to push such people, not just Jews, to the top of most of our institutions of law, persuasion, and force. Once there, an obvious way to defend such position is to divide, babbel-ize, and set all other groups against one another --- even as the most favored group tends to decline to assimilate.
This selective mechanism leads to a two class society: Those that are ruled under laws that specially favor the rulers, and those that rule with laws devised to defend their position of power. This, of course, is not quite what America's Founders had in mind.
This is not a problem of genetics. It is a problem of social natural selection. The good thing about natural selection is this: It can be foreseen, and then redirected. IOW, Natural Selection is subject to a feedback process with Guiding Consciousness.
If the communist faith system is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?
The people of the Swamp have no loyalty to any higher principle, much less to America. Even though they often claim to be "as moral as anyone else," this is because they don't actually have any belief in morality at all. IOW, they have no faith except in their self promotion. This is why I call them self-godded, godless, and/or godforsaken. Their bodies may be rich and their glands may be pleasured, but their souls are miserable and hollow. By their fruits, we know them.
The GOPe is no more concerned about looking out for Americans than the Dino Party. Apart from pretense and phony promises, that is. Yet, they pretend to be educated, elite, and morally scientific.
If our national framework has become so twisted that decent people of good faith and good will cannot be elected, then sturdier measures may have to be taken to straighten the twist.
If anyone is prone to cuffing his ears and going lalalalala, it seems to be you.
You seem to want to say what you don't believe, but then decline to say what you do believe that could rationalize your non-belief.
Do you define what you don't believe, or do you simply put everything you have not much thought about in that category? Do you believe in goodness? Do you believe morality is derived only through reason? Do you believe any behaviors are moral, that you have not specifically thought about?
Do you believe the measurable part of the cosmos is entirely the expression of what is measurable? Do you believe the cosmos arose from a split in positive and negative charges of nothingness? Do you believe such belief in nothingness is not a belief in somethingness? Do you believe in an identity for your I-ness? Do you believe your position of atheism is not subject to change, as "you" change?
Is empathy part of your understanding of morality? Do you have a belief with regard to whether some patterns, forms, identities tend innately to seek reinforcement together, with or over others? Do you believe the cosmos as it measurably presents would exist without regard to an observer effect?
When you say you do not believe in God, what is your definition of this god in which you do not believe? (I also do not believe in a giant spaghetti monster god.) However, do you believe in Consciousness, in your "self" and/or others? Do you believe there is some difference in the fundamental nature or character of consciousness, as it applies to yourself versus others?
Do you believe it is important in any moral sense to advance your belief in non-belief, with regard to any reconciling Source for morality or moral purposefulness? Why do you consider your advancement of non-belief in a reconciling Source of Consciousness to be moral? Who (or what) tells you that such advancement is more moral (or as moral) as attempts to advance belief in an empathetic connection among all in-forming perspectives of Consciousness? Do you believe morality entails good faith or good will? Do you not believe in a general goodness?.
I wonder how much of the disputation with so-called atheists is semantics. I think, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such.
Much of disputation consists in trying to define terms so as not to talk past one another. Problem is, there seems to abide no thing that we can reduce to terminology that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and complete. Much of attempts in communication seem to relate to unclear smoke signals. Of what communication there is, it seems to arise with the give and take of some thing beyond what is purely measurable, i.e., what I would term "innate good faith and good will." Godly, because it is innate. I think giving it a name for reference sake can help assimilate decent civilization. If we cannot talk in the public square about what is godly or goodly, I think it less likely we will assimilate decent civilization. And more likely we will fall under the rule of self-godded, oligarchic liars, poseurs, and phony knowitall moral scientisimists.
Your first sentence was so nonsensical, it was hard to bother with the rest. Perhaps you should read the following three times while clicking your heels together: My concern is less with science (empirical measurables) than with appreciating its limitations.
******
Information may not ever be lost, but it is transformed and reinterpreted. I fluxes to S to C. As C takes on new perspectives, it takes on new interpretations of previous Information, and may phase beyond access to the previous interpretation.
*************
I am willing to listen to the argument for keeping bases abroad, for the purpose of killing jihadis, despots, commie-fascists, and thugs there instead of here.
That said, I am not for trying to turn other nations into republics. We should have neutered or killed Saddam, then left. Not try to export democracy.
We will always be plagued by self-godded, people-farming, arms-death-dealing, oligarchs who profit by stirring crap. Our problem is how to kill them abroad, while they are small, without nurturing them at home. I am not confident of any easy way to achieve that. Nor am I confident that American politicians can ever be immune from being infested and poisoned by them.
I don't have a simple solution to this evil or an alternative to Pax Americana. Withdrawal after WWI did not work out so well. What I do believe is that the faithless-idiotic-jihadi-commie-fascist-oligarchic cannibalizing of faith, family, and fidelity at home is nursing a lot of evil --- here and abroad. These cannibals and connivers have no respect for basic human freedom or dignity.
Jesus spoke in figures of speech that are general, in metaphoric language that avails discussion by way of cross referencing. Those parables tend not to dictate precise behavior for precise situations. Rather, they facilitate conversation and communication. Beginning points of reference, to encourage people to come together to reason in good faith and good will. That is what churches and volunteer charities are for. But to try to legislate niceness via central governmental law is NOT charity. It is simply the upshot of competing special interests, vying for advantage against the general commonwealth.
I would not single out any race, color, gender, orientation, or origin for special favor or condemnation. I think that is un-American and often evil. I WOULD single out any fascist who advocates trying to force people to be nice by restricting speech to prevent the expression of any idea merely because he/she may deem it to be politically incorrect. And anyone who advocates general blocking of traffic, looting, burning of books, or unlawful tearing down of public statues. I don't think my position is hateful. But I do think the contrary is often evil.
Too many people hate Trump so much they cannot think straight. That is un-Christian and un-American. In pique against Trump, they would burn down the republic. Too many fascists who want to vent unlawful rage pose as anti-fascists. While Trump wants to save the republic, they want to burn it. And who is funding and agitating them and their media? That needs to be looked into!
I would like to see a list of what these able-bodied, so-called "anti-fascists" want to legislate. Maybe I would reevaluate my position if I could see such a list. Does anyone have one? Do these people have any clue what it is that they want the government to legislate or do for them? I have seen some lists of evil stuff. Like advocating that non-black lives do not matter. Or that non-blacks should give their property or houses to blacks. But realistically, Constitutionally, and lawfully, what do they want the central government to do?
Still, I see the Antifa people, goonish as they may be, as God's children, and their behaviors, evil as some of them may be, as more like cause to be sad than to hate. I want to see the American ideal of freedom and dignity for all citizens restored. I want to see people being valued for the content of their character, not for the force of their gang-banging. If this makes me hateful in the eyes of Antifa and its history-illiterates, then that is on them. As I see it, they are the true haters, racists, and fascists. Too many of them have been bent to destroying the republic. Why are they allowing their brains to be turned to putty in the hands of conniving oligarchs bent on cannibalizing the republic? Riddle me this: Why else do they want to open the borders?
*****************
Who is it, really, who is working overtime to divide the people, to make it easier to destroy and cannibalize the republic? I would put that on the oligarchy that owns the media. Have you ever seen so many ravenous wolves all snarling the same talking points? They thought they had that as a done deal under Obama. In my view, they are working overtime against Trump because they fear their spoil may be taken back.
******************
You can't cross the same river twice, nor can you factor your own ever-changing interests in a non-changing way. In social concerns, you cannot enforce ceteris paribus. You cannot avoid post hoc factoring by non-disinterested persons, or reasoning in a circle to reinforce self identity. Consequence: Perpetual attribution after the fact, posing as data driven.
By the bye: Tell me what preponderance of evidence proves continuation is "better" than elimination or annihilation. Show your purely empirical proof that the pursuers of Nirvana (elimination of self) or Nihilism are wrong. Of course, you won't even try. Certainly, you will not succeed. But, as a Bot, you will revert back to your pre-programmed position.
There are reasons to oppose annihilation, but they are not entirely fact-driven.
*************
I indicated that some evidence essential for making moral choices is beyond empirical measure. (A decision to continue one's existence is a moral decision. Your only evidence is because "you wanna." Which is my point.)
If you did not take issue with that, then it appears you are conceding by deflecting? I think you have a problem with denial, brought on by deep animus against the god idea and the idea that is probably clear to most thinking people: that science, by itself, is not enough.
You may need psychological counseling more than debate, because your debating is deeply rutted in denial.
If science by itself were enough, we could safely delegate all social/moral decisions to moral scientists serving central oligarchs. Which is precisely what a lot of atheists, prog scientisimists, and law droolers seem to want to do. No thanks.
***************
In pure fact, no one is an atheist because there is no pure understanding of what constitutes atheism. There are, however, relational stances of atheism. For them, whether one identifies as an atheist depends on how they identify God.
In relation to a postulated Giant Spaghetti Monster, I am an atheist. In respect of a belief in a hereafter of harps, halos, and perpetual choirs, and many other beliefs, I am a strong agnostic. I simply do not find such beliefs to be evidentiary or necessary.
I do not think it especially helpful to try to put people in rigorous statistical boxes on matters of spiritual belief or mores. After all, their feelings about their beliefs may change several times every day. Or be affected by unfolding circumstances and news. Traumatic events may suddenly change many minds.
For example, I have not found an hypothesis that the body of Jesus was the only begotten Son of God to be evident or necessary to my moral philosophy. So I have no belief concerning that point. Does that mean I am not a Christian? Well, to some, yes. To me, no.
***************************
What I do believe is that a spiritual, inviting, caring, and reconciling essence blessed and inhabited the body of Jesus as no other, since or before. I think the exemplar of Jesus, whether through Him or His story, helps save the better in-form-ation of our nature. I believe we are in a steady spiritual state for serving and fulfilling the Godhead. Not all in-form-ation is preserved to that status.
Moreover, to the extent we, in our prayers and energies, believe in an inviting, caring Godhead, as exampled by Jesus, we tend to "put flesh on" that belief and make it so. Thus, I believe we tend to produce and fulfill a better unfoldment of civilization.
******************
Materialists pooh pooh such beliefs. Probably because they believe substantively measurable physics is the superior source, of which consciousness and information are only derivatives.
I do not believe that. Rather, I think Substance, Consciousness, and Information are co-equal Trinitarian faces of a unitary Godhead.
After all, how can present Substance be the superior, when it immediately passes into the past, as a cumulation of information? How can Information abide, unless it (at least potentially) is inherently informative to consciousness? How can Consciousness signify any communication, unless its communications are founded in the math with which substance is conserved and balanced? Our existentiality is innately Trinitarian, beyond mere Substance.
***********
IAE, to relate as being moral, one needs a moral philosophy. That such philosophy may be necessary does not mean it must be without mental or moral force or effect. After all, what rigorous moral philosophy is entirely consistent, coherent, and complete?
So what may someone mean, when he poses that he, without belief in a godhead, is "as moral as" anyone else? And what is his consistent, coherent, and complete definition for this godhead of which he claims to be atheistic? I suspect many atheists and moralists tend mainly to rationalize in circles for whatever the favored metaphors with which they feel comfortable. As such, apart from dramatic stance, I doubt they shed much empirical or analytical light on "what morality really is." Or on whether they are "as moral as anyone else."
It may be more useful to ask: What manner of philosophy and governance is best suited to establish and sustain a decent and dignified society of free thinking adults? For that, I think a belief in an active principle of caring and inviting reconciliation is essential. Whether a person wants to call that acting principler an "innate law of moral nature" or a "guidance from a godhead" seems not especially important. Either way, the commandment of good faith and good will would still apply. Either way, houses of meditative assimilation and/or contemplative prayer would still be important. The difference would mainly be one of stubborn name calling and metaphor.
So, why do self-godding oligarchs want to banish such meditative good will and contemplative good faith from the public square? I submit it is largely because they want to divide and rule --- unimpeded by the people thinking, meditating, contemplating, and assimilating.
To assimilate the shared values to back a political program, must such atheists share "a religion" or a "real moral standard"? May that depend on how your faith would define religion or real morality?
When such atheists take such a stance, may I be as justified in naming their common value system a religion as they are in saying it is not? If it is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?
I do not appreciate giant spaghetti monster people, either. Which was part of the point. Maybe you're looking to be offended? My point is that, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such. Another point was to question the reliability or meaningfulness of the survey.
Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.
A ruling class need not defend all its progeny. Just those among it that are inclined to want to rule.
Ask: Did the persons favored with membership in the Communist Party really believe in Communism, or did they more likely believe in the "justice" that they should, as elite nomenklatura educated in social scientism, rule the peasants --- "for their own good"?
Among the network of nomenklatura, would not those who already saw their tribe as specially chosen tend to be favored?
Some selective mechanisms seem to apply to tribes generally, not just to Jews --- even though some Jews seem to have become most successful in deploying such mechanisms.
Ask: What cohesive, self-choosing tribe, when placed within a larger society, would not seek to infiltrate its institutions to craft laws, rules, traditions, and social scientism bent to specially protect itself? Some Jews have found ways to pull down so-called Whities, even as they claim as exemption that Jews are not to be classified with Whites.
Such people tend to seek a kind of social salvation by erecting mountains of legalese, affirmatively bent to favor their status. A kind of pump of history seems to push such people, not just Jews, to the top of most of our institutions of law, persuasion, and force. Once there, an obvious way to defend such position is to divide, diversity, and set all other groups against one another --- even as the most favored group tends to decline to assimilate.
This selective mechanism leads to a two class society: Those that are ruled under laws that specially favor the rulers, and those that rule with laws devised to defend their position of power. This, of course, is not quite what America's Founders had in mind.
This is not a problem of genetics. It is a problem of social natural selection. The good thing about natural selection is this: It can be foreseen, and then redirected. IOW, Natural Selection is subject to a feedback process with Guiding Consciousness.
If the communist faith system is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?
***********
Trump is part of the oligarchy/ruling class. He, like they, has a choice. And his choice, unlike theirs, seems to be to try to restore the representative republic.
Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.
Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.
************
I see Natural Selection as making sense in respect of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. I don't think particular expressions of matter are preset from the beginning. But I do think that whatever measurably unfolds has to obey the Law of Conservation. Otherwise, equations for trying to balance practical empiricism would be too bizarre to be practical.
That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead. A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker. Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective. I don't think that's preset. I think it's unfolding.
Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others. I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.
As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable. God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.
That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead. A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker. Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective. I don't think that's preset. I think it's unfolding.
Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others. I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.
As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable. God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.
********************
Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.
How could a ruling (consistent, coherent, and complete) algorithm ever be subject to human scientific discovery, since every such discovery would necessarily entail an infinite regress of choices in response to it? IOW, each new discovery would upset the previously imagined preset.
I think Nature (Substance) and Consciousness are bound together in a perpetual dance of feedback reconciliation, which accumulates a trailing record of Information. CSI.
************
I see Natural Selection as making sense in respect of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. I don't think particular expressions of matter are preset from the beginning. But I do think that whatever measurably unfolds has to obey the Law of Conservation. Otherwise, equations for trying to balance practical empiricism would be too bizarre to be practical.
That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead. A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker. Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective. I don't think that's preset. I think it's unfolding.
Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others. I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.
As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable. God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.
EDIT: IAE, Jesus wept. The Godhead experiences our pains and joys. That which is reconciled is carried forward, so that its In-form-ation is not lost. If that is cruelty, then it is cruelty by the Godhead to ITself. Just as it is joy to itself. It is what it is, and such is not for me to judge.
If there is a solution, it is not in sending history down the memory hole or in enacting mountains of speech regulations. It is in freeing speech and in restoring respect for the spiritual Reconciler. Better churching, less elitist despotism.
I am not an atheist, but I wonder about dogma. I wonder why, deep down, both atheists and theists are so scared to question their dogma?
After all, no system of thought can give an accounting of the cosmos that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and clear. As the cosmos fluxes, why are so many people so afraid to think about inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their noses?
Not only do some fear going outside safe places for their bodies, but many fear thinking beyond their comfort zones. Maybe they fear they would melt in a pile of inconsistencies? But what gives them any claim to high ground when they arm that fear by trying to block or lock down the thinking of everyone else? This is especially common on some of the religion blogs. Then they wonder why people with high functioning brains stop wasting time with them.
It's obvious what the oligarchy wants. But what do the targeted farm-ees want (or expect), other than to be farmed and not to have to think or be responsible for themselves?
? Do they want a license to loot. To pimp kids. To open borders. To force reverse taxes (reparations), based on percentage of dark blood. To impose race-based guilt quotas. To use law to force people to like certain races and behavioral orientations more than others. To restrict speech so people aren't allowed to hurt the feelings of pc selected gang bangers. To destroy freedom and dignity under the representative republic, to replace it with central diktat of neo-moral-scientisimists. To force a neo-secular religion.
Mostly, it appears they want to be farmed. And ordinary Americans slept while these wannabe farmees were imported, bred, indoctrinated, and rewarded to be the new majority. At this point, it is unclear that any country or culture in the world merits any longer to try to function as a representative republic. They merit to be farmed, and they are hell bent to get farmed.
Sheep do not have to think or be responsible for themselves. They feed on weed and they are sheared as they breed. A few are selected to wear pretty panties.
***************
You seem to want to say what you don't believe, but then decline to say what you do believe that could rationalize your non-belief.
Do you define what you don't believe, or do you simply put everything you have not much thought about in that category? Do you believe in goodness? Do you believe morality is derived only through reason? Do you believe any behaviors are moral, that you have not specifically thought about?
Do you believe the measurable part of the cosmos is entirely the expression of what is measurable? Do you believe the cosmos arose from a split in positive and negative charges of nothingness? Do you believe such belief in nothingness is not a belief in somethingness? Do you believe in an identity for your I-ness? Do you believe your position of atheism is not subject to change, as "you" change?
Is empathy part of your understanding of morality? Do you have a belief with regard to whether some patterns, forms, identities tend innately to seek reinforcement together, with or over others? Do you believe the cosmos as it measurably presents would exist without regard to an observer effect?
When you say you do not believe in God, what is your definition of this god in which you do not believe? (I also do not believe in a giant spaghetti monster god.) However, do you believe in Consciousness, in your "self" and/or others? Do you believe there is some difference in the fundamental nature or character of consciousness, as it applies to yourself versus others?
Do you believe it is important in any moral sense to advance your belief in non-belief, with regard to any reconciling Source for morality or moral purposefulness? Why do you consider your advancement of non-belief in a reconciling Source of Consciousness to be moral? Who (or what) tells you that such advancement is more moral (or as moral) as attempts to advance belief in an empathetic connection among all in-forming perspectives of Consciousness? Do you believe morality entails good faith or good will? Do you not believe in a general goodness?.
I wonder how much of the disputation with so-called atheists is semantics. I think, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such.
Much of disputation consists in trying to define terms so as not to talk past one another. Problem is, there seems to abide no thing that we can reduce to terminology that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and complete. Much of attempts in communication seem to relate to unclear smoke signals. Of what communication there is, it seems to arise with the give and take of some thing beyond what is purely measurable, i.e., what I would term "innate good faith and good will." Godly, because it is innate. I think giving it a name for reference sake can help assimilate decent civilization. If we cannot talk in the public square about what is godly or goodly, I think it less likely we will assimilate decent civilization. And more likely we will fall under the rule of self-godded, oligarchic liars, poseurs, and phony knowitall moral scientisimists.
***************
There are as many sides to bigotry and hate as there are godforsaken people farmers bent on harvesting people by dividing them. Hateful gang bangers (angry toddlers) always justify themselves by projecting their hatred as the animus of targeted others. Grownups seek to instill individual competence by breaking up mobs of bang bangers and prosecuting their people-farming funders.
***********
I suspect there is something perpetually self-creative about the pursuit of scientific models. I suspect some pursuits may by feedback lead to alternative multiverses, perhaps eventually to differently phasing "laws of nature." This is not something that can be tested. Perhaps intuited. Yet, empiricists can hardly complain, since they also often intuit/implicate a multiverse. The point is, I suspect so-called "laws of nature" are not eternal, but subject to phasing.I think you are just looking to dispute by trying to build some kind of eternal scientific sand castle in the sky. Good luck with that.
Your appreciation of scientific models may be deficient. I would refer you to David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity." What we do is tinker with explanations (models) that remain forever incomplete, yet tend to be quite useful for various practical purposes for societies that happen to use them. Scientific models deal with measurables, even though they can never quite complete a math based explanation for every possible factor. Morality based models tend to deal more with qualitatives. If such models were not important, we could put all moral determinations in the hands of bots programmed for that purpose.
Your appreciation of scientific models may be deficient. I would refer you to David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity." What we do is tinker with explanations (models) that remain forever incomplete, yet tend to be quite useful for various practical purposes for societies that happen to use them. Scientific models deal with measurables, even though they can never quite complete a math based explanation for every possible factor. Morality based models tend to deal more with qualitatives. If such models were not important, we could put all moral determinations in the hands of bots programmed for that purpose.
Yes, bots do exist. Bots are regurgitative programs. When you mention that not everything of existence is subject to scientific measuring, they simply cannot process it.
Mainly I detest the moral scientism of wannabe destroyers of the representative republic.
It's more like knowing that every mortal has intellectual limitations and blinders. If you believe differently, that may be at the root of your so-called atheism and dogmatism.
However, figures of speech are helpful for providing common points of reference. Language and communication depend on metaphors. Even the models in science are, ultimately, based in metaphors. They describe what nature and its laws are like, not precisely what they are.
Without religious metaphors, there would be little around which communities could in good faith assimilate.
There can never be scientific evidence for that which is by nature beyond science. The issue is one of good faith. Whether one believes in a general pursuit of goodliness, reconciled with receptivity to a guiding principler.
That which reflects a fundamental belief in its worthiness seems to have an advantage with regard to whether its in-form-ation will propagate and continue. That which does not, will not.
Consciousness is that which appreciates the measured signification of stories through Substance, as it accumulates its record of the Information of measurables that have preceded its present formulations. The Trinity fluxes as C, S, I. C is the upshot of S as it accumulates I. S is I stored for presentation to C. I is the cumulative record of preceding presentations of S to C.
I also do not adhere to biblical literalism. I am a deist ... who believes the Godhead has not left the building. Regardless, I do not approve of persons (law droolers) who pose as perfect mouthpieces of God for the purpose of dictating behavioral rules, out the wazoo. I agree such persons should be exposed. I think the god title is not in itself a bad term. I agree it has been abused. I am more into receptiveness to reflection than to worshipful ceremony.
That said, different people feel differently. I think reflective people of good faith can help moderate them. IAE, I think knowitall pagans, atheists, socialists, communists, and statist moral dictators have contributed to most of the world's suffering. Well, except for the Muslims.
I am not surprised when a person stubbornly rooted in unbelief in godliness or goodliness may fail to see the stubborn dogmatism.
I think your analysis is in some ways too dogmatic. But I agree that religion can often be used to advance un-good. (I had to correct the auto correct to write un-good. I hate auto correct!) I also agree that most intelligent people do not dwell on fear of hell, and that stirring such fear is a favorite method for authoritarian poseurs.
I am not sure what you mean by supernatural. Most people do abide by learned (churched?) codes of behavior, which tend not to be based entirely in science, reason, or logic. If behavioral codes could be so based, we would probably have a better chance to reach worldwide consensus --- under authoritarian moral scientisimists. For myself, I prefer a representative republic over rule under knowitall moral scientisimists.
Atheism is much like any other system for trying to justify belief or disbelief in belief. There are many dogmatic justifications for Christianity, just as there are for atheists.
God and scientists speak to us using the figures of speech, metaphors, and models that are in common use at the time. Those models change and flux, as our system and world changes and fluxes. That's consistent with how language and models change.
At no time could God or science speak to us to convey perfect understanding. From mortal perspective, perfect understanding is simply beyond us.
Your idea of atheism seems stunted. I doubt I will find much reason to join you in your overly simplistic system of circular mind restriction.
I am not an atheist, but I wonder about dogma. I wonder why, deep down, both atheists and theists are so scared to question their dogma?
After all, no system of thought can give an accounting of the cosmos that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and clear. As the cosmos fluxes, why are so many people so afraid to think about inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their noses?
Not only do some fear going outside safe places for their bodies, but many fear thinking beyond their comfort zones. Maybe they fear they would melt in a pile of inconsistencies? But what gives them any claim to high ground when they arm that fear by trying to block or lock down the thinking of everyone else? This is especially common on some of the religion blogs. Then they wonder why people with high functioning brains stop wasting time with them.
I think giving up on an innate aspect of good faith and good will leads to more cruelty. It sacrifices the faith needed to bring people together to assimilate ideals of purpose, decency, dignity, and freedom. It helps to rationalize the depredations of oligarchs as good or necessary. That's why I refer to them as self-godded, godless, and/or godforsaken.
In the usual parlance, natural selection verbiage signals discussion relating to gene frequencies. That said, practices of social selection are part of nature.
I see Natural Selection as making sense in respect of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. I don't think particular expressions of matter are preset from the beginning. But I do think that whatever measurably unfolds has to obey the Law of Conservation. Otherwise, equations for trying to balance practical empiricism would be too bizarre to be practical.
That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead. A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker. Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective. I don't think that's preset. I think it's unfolding.
Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others. I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.
As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable. God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.
EDIT: IAE, Jesus wept. The Godhead experiences our pains and joys. That which is reconciled is carried forward, so that its In-form-ation is not lost. If that is cruelty, then it is cruelty by the Godhead to ITself. Just as it is joy to itself. It is what it is, and such is not for me to judge.
Trump is part of the oligarchy/ruling class. He, like they, has a choice. And his choice, unlike theirs, seems to be to try to restore the representative republic.
I would agree that most of the rest of the oligarchy is trying to take that choice away from him (and us).
You seem to be missing the point. Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.
How could a ruling (consistent, coherent, and complete) algorithm ever be subject to human scientific discovery, since every such discovery would necessarily entail an infinite regress of choices in response to it? IOW, each new discovery would upset the previously imagined preset.
I think Nature (Substance) and Consciousness are bound together in a perpetual dance of feedback reconciliation, which accumulates a trailing record of Information. CSI.
Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.
A ruling class need not defend all its progeny. Just those among it that are inclined to want to rule.
Ask: Did the persons favored with membership in the Communist Party really believe in Communism? Nope. They believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat. They said the dictatorship would someday wither away. What fool thinks they really believed that? More likely, they believed in the "justice" that they should, as elite nomenklatura educated in social scientism, rule the peasants --- "for their own good" --- for as long as it takes (meaning in perpetuity).
Among the network of nomenklatura, would not those who already saw their tribe as specially chosen tend to be favored?
Some selective mechanisms seem to apply to tribes generally, not just to Jews --- even though some Jews seem to have become most successful in deploying such mechanisms.
Ask: What cohesive, self-choosing tribe, when placed within a larger society, would not seek to infiltrate its institutions to craft laws, rules, traditions, and social scientism bent to specially protect itself? Some Jews have found ways to pull down so-called Whities, even as they claim as exemption that Jews are not to be classified with Whites.
Such people tend to seek a kind of social salvation by erecting mountains of legalese, affirmatively bent to favor their status. A kind of pump of history seems to push such people, not just Jews, to the top of most of our institutions of law, persuasion, and force. Once there, an obvious way to defend such position is to divide, babbel-ize, and set all other groups against one another --- even as the most favored group tends to decline to assimilate.
This selective mechanism leads to a two class society: Those that are ruled under laws that specially favor the rulers, and those that rule with laws devised to defend their position of power. This, of course, is not quite what America's Founders had in mind.
This is not a problem of genetics. It is a problem of social natural selection. The good thing about natural selection is this: It can be foreseen, and then redirected. IOW, Natural Selection is subject to a feedback process with Guiding Consciousness.
If the communist faith system is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?
The people of the Swamp have no loyalty to any higher principle, much less to America. Even though they often claim to be "as moral as anyone else," this is because they don't actually have any belief in morality at all. IOW, they have no faith except in their self promotion. This is why I call them self-godded, godless, and/or godforsaken. Their bodies may be rich and their glands may be pleasured, but their souls are miserable and hollow. By their fruits, we know them.
The GOPe is no more concerned about looking out for Americans than the Dino Party. Apart from pretense and phony promises, that is. Yet, they pretend to be educated, elite, and morally scientific.
If our national framework has become so twisted that decent people of good faith and good will cannot be elected, then sturdier measures may have to be taken to straighten the twist.
If anyone is prone to cuffing his ears and going lalalalala, it seems to be you.
You seem to want to say what you don't believe, but then decline to say what you do believe that could rationalize your non-belief.
Do you define what you don't believe, or do you simply put everything you have not much thought about in that category? Do you believe in goodness? Do you believe morality is derived only through reason? Do you believe any behaviors are moral, that you have not specifically thought about?
Do you believe the measurable part of the cosmos is entirely the expression of what is measurable? Do you believe the cosmos arose from a split in positive and negative charges of nothingness? Do you believe such belief in nothingness is not a belief in somethingness? Do you believe in an identity for your I-ness? Do you believe your position of atheism is not subject to change, as "you" change?
Is empathy part of your understanding of morality? Do you have a belief with regard to whether some patterns, forms, identities tend innately to seek reinforcement together, with or over others? Do you believe the cosmos as it measurably presents would exist without regard to an observer effect?
When you say you do not believe in God, what is your definition of this god in which you do not believe? (I also do not believe in a giant spaghetti monster god.) However, do you believe in Consciousness, in your "self" and/or others? Do you believe there is some difference in the fundamental nature or character of consciousness, as it applies to yourself versus others?
Do you believe it is important in any moral sense to advance your belief in non-belief, with regard to any reconciling Source for morality or moral purposefulness? Why do you consider your advancement of non-belief in a reconciling Source of Consciousness to be moral? Who (or what) tells you that such advancement is more moral (or as moral) as attempts to advance belief in an empathetic connection among all in-forming perspectives of Consciousness? Do you believe morality entails good faith or good will? Do you not believe in a general goodness?.
I wonder how much of the disputation with so-called atheists is semantics. I think, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such.
Much of disputation consists in trying to define terms so as not to talk past one another. Problem is, there seems to abide no thing that we can reduce to terminology that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and complete. Much of attempts in communication seem to relate to unclear smoke signals. Of what communication there is, it seems to arise with the give and take of some thing beyond what is purely measurable, i.e., what I would term "innate good faith and good will." Godly, because it is innate. I think giving it a name for reference sake can help assimilate decent civilization. If we cannot talk in the public square about what is godly or goodly, I think it less likely we will assimilate decent civilization. And more likely we will fall under the rule of self-godded, oligarchic liars, poseurs, and phony knowitall moral scientisimists.
Your first sentence was so nonsensical, it was hard to bother with the rest. Perhaps you should read the following three times while clicking your heels together: My concern is less with science (empirical measurables) than with appreciating its limitations.
My postulation is this:
Consciousness is that which appreciates the measured signification of stories through Substance, as it accumulates its record of the Information of measurables that have preceded its present formulations.
IOW, the Trinity (Godhead) fluxes as C, S, I. C is the upshot of S as it accumulates I. S is I as it is stored for presentation to C. I is the cumulative record of preceding presentations of S to C. Think of God as the Reconciler of Perspectives of C. (You do believe in consciousness, do you not?)
That is not an empirically testable hypothesis. It's only test is based on self-evidence, intuition, and insight. It seeks to be as consistent, coherent, and complete as possible. Seeks, not achieves. If it were shown to impede valid science, I would abandon it.
However, you fail to show any such a thing. Instead, like a bot, you try to disprove what is necessarily beyond empirical testing by asserting it cannot be empirically tested. Well, Bot, big duh! I think what makes you a Bot is a big log that blinds your vision. You need to work on that to become a real human being.
Think Bot, think! Tell me what communal goal is NOT based on values that are in many ways beyond measure. Do you value your name? If that depends only on its non-metaphorical measure, tell me what that measure is. Likewise, do you value your family, country, culture? Do you have aspirations for expressing your interests in art and employment? If so, tell me which of your interests and moral purposes are entirely measurable in empiricism or math.
Self-correcting seems mainly to be an alternative way of saying self-creating or self-selecting. I agree, Bot, that you haven't moved to remove the log from your eye. I agree that the CSI System is one of dynamic feedback (self correction). That is why I say God has not left the building.
As to fiction, I don't think you apprehend the often self-fulfilling role of what otherwise would be fiction. Before the Big Bang, its potential expression was fiction. Then it became expressed.
I think you have a deep seated anxiety regarding the Bible. Take that up by being receptive to the Reconciler. It may help if you remove the log. I can't reveal the Truth. I can only suggest a path for you to pursue it.
******
Information may not ever be lost, but it is transformed and reinterpreted. I fluxes to S to C. As C takes on new perspectives, it takes on new interpretations of previous Information, and may phase beyond access to the previous interpretation.
*************
I am willing to listen to the argument for keeping bases abroad, for the purpose of killing jihadis, despots, commie-fascists, and thugs there instead of here.
That said, I am not for trying to turn other nations into republics. We should have neutered or killed Saddam, then left. Not try to export democracy.
We will always be plagued by self-godded, people-farming, arms-death-dealing, oligarchs who profit by stirring crap. Our problem is how to kill them abroad, while they are small, without nurturing them at home. I am not confident of any easy way to achieve that. Nor am I confident that American politicians can ever be immune from being infested and poisoned by them.
I don't have a simple solution to this evil or an alternative to Pax Americana. Withdrawal after WWI did not work out so well. What I do believe is that the faithless-idiotic-jihadi-commie-fascist-oligarchic cannibalizing of faith, family, and fidelity at home is nursing a lot of evil --- here and abroad. These cannibals and connivers have no respect for basic human freedom or dignity.
Jesus spoke in figures of speech that are general, in metaphoric language that avails discussion by way of cross referencing. Those parables tend not to dictate precise behavior for precise situations. Rather, they facilitate conversation and communication. Beginning points of reference, to encourage people to come together to reason in good faith and good will. That is what churches and volunteer charities are for. But to try to legislate niceness via central governmental law is NOT charity. It is simply the upshot of competing special interests, vying for advantage against the general commonwealth.
I would not single out any race, color, gender, orientation, or origin for special favor or condemnation. I think that is un-American and often evil. I WOULD single out any fascist who advocates trying to force people to be nice by restricting speech to prevent the expression of any idea merely because he/she may deem it to be politically incorrect. And anyone who advocates general blocking of traffic, looting, burning of books, or unlawful tearing down of public statues. I don't think my position is hateful. But I do think the contrary is often evil.
Too many people hate Trump so much they cannot think straight. That is un-Christian and un-American. In pique against Trump, they would burn down the republic. Too many fascists who want to vent unlawful rage pose as anti-fascists. While Trump wants to save the republic, they want to burn it. And who is funding and agitating them and their media? That needs to be looked into!
I would like to see a list of what these able-bodied, so-called "anti-fascists" want to legislate. Maybe I would reevaluate my position if I could see such a list. Does anyone have one? Do these people have any clue what it is that they want the government to legislate or do for them? I have seen some lists of evil stuff. Like advocating that non-black lives do not matter. Or that non-blacks should give their property or houses to blacks. But realistically, Constitutionally, and lawfully, what do they want the central government to do?
Still, I see the Antifa people, goonish as they may be, as God's children, and their behaviors, evil as some of them may be, as more like cause to be sad than to hate. I want to see the American ideal of freedom and dignity for all citizens restored. I want to see people being valued for the content of their character, not for the force of their gang-banging. If this makes me hateful in the eyes of Antifa and its history-illiterates, then that is on them. As I see it, they are the true haters, racists, and fascists. Too many of them have been bent to destroying the republic. Why are they allowing their brains to be turned to putty in the hands of conniving oligarchs bent on cannibalizing the republic? Riddle me this: Why else do they want to open the borders?
*****************
Who is it, really, who is working overtime to divide the people, to make it easier to destroy and cannibalize the republic? I would put that on the oligarchy that owns the media. Have you ever seen so many ravenous wolves all snarling the same talking points? They thought they had that as a done deal under Obama. In my view, they are working overtime against Trump because they fear their spoil may be taken back.
******************
You can't cross the same river twice, nor can you factor your own ever-changing interests in a non-changing way. In social concerns, you cannot enforce ceteris paribus. You cannot avoid post hoc factoring by non-disinterested persons, or reasoning in a circle to reinforce self identity. Consequence: Perpetual attribution after the fact, posing as data driven.
By the bye: Tell me what preponderance of evidence proves continuation is "better" than elimination or annihilation. Show your purely empirical proof that the pursuers of Nirvana (elimination of self) or Nihilism are wrong. Of course, you won't even try. Certainly, you will not succeed. But, as a Bot, you will revert back to your pre-programmed position.
There are reasons to oppose annihilation, but they are not entirely fact-driven.
*************
I indicated that some evidence essential for making moral choices is beyond empirical measure. (A decision to continue one's existence is a moral decision. Your only evidence is because "you wanna." Which is my point.)
If you did not take issue with that, then it appears you are conceding by deflecting? I think you have a problem with denial, brought on by deep animus against the god idea and the idea that is probably clear to most thinking people: that science, by itself, is not enough.
You may need psychological counseling more than debate, because your debating is deeply rutted in denial.
If science by itself were enough, we could safely delegate all social/moral decisions to moral scientists serving central oligarchs. Which is precisely what a lot of atheists, prog scientisimists, and law droolers seem to want to do. No thanks.
***************
No comments:
Post a Comment