Why I don't care about polygamy, the B of A scrolls, B of M

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is a fascinating expose, but it is very two-dimensional, which by nature of its inaccuracy falls flat on its face.

Restating the argument, it runs this way: there are two base camps of thought about how the world and cosmos operate (1) those based on Hebraic concept of God, and (2) secular humanists. Seattle limits these groups for the western world, and then posits that the philosophers helped us break out of the strangleholds of Hebraic concepts into a more enlightened state of secular humanism.

Well, as I am certain Seattle recognizes, his world he just created is a mythical world, not reality. We live in a more complex philosophical world, a world of differential calculus, not Euclidian geometry.

First, the Hebraic world was never one of consensus. If one examines Jewish intellectuals alone, no one agrees or agreed. If Seattle is only arguing, a one on one relationship with God was not universally accepted even by Jewish intellectuals.

Second, enlightenment was not solely are response to the Hebraic concept of God, but simply man's search for knowledge in many disciplines. And it's not true that those philosophers cited by Seattle universally rejected the Hebraic concept of God, but probably have done much to refine what areas are the responsibility of science and what the parametees of religion.

What is philosophy? It started off broader than it is today. Metaphsics, beyond physics. Descartes tried to hypthesize about some organ in the brain the linked the spiritual with the physical. Plato and Aristotle posited many things which weren't true.

It is simply a false statement that secular humanism is the advanced state of knowledge that has supplanted its predecessor. Knowledge of the physical world is not really the realm of most spiritual guidance, but rather a moral philosophy is the realm of spiritualism. We cannot ignore the physical world, but the two can live together in harmony and they are not mutually exclusive. That seems to be the basic argument of secular humanism, but since it is a vacuum, devoid any real substance, it is my view, it will die as truth continues to emerge, and a new contemporary philosophy will emerge. Meanwhile, we troglodite Hebraic concepts of God will continue to thrive and learn more of the world, inculcating all aspects of truth, evolving as it were, independent of the restraints of one secular philosophy over another.

I'm still deconstructing this lovely passage between the demands of my practice. I'll have something to say in response.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think non-sequitor is right here, but let me try to re-state what he is saying. Comparing an atheist point of view to religious faith is highly misleading, for much the same reason as comparing science to religion (which some religious folks such as my friend Waters are wont to do) is highly misleading.

What’s misleading is the argument born of denial that suggests what I have stated is absurd.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Atheism is a discplined, deliberate refusal to believe anything that is not verified through the scientific method as true. If you can't demonstrate it through experimentation, through reason applied to sensory experience, it isn't there. But that is not to say an atheist rejects the possibility of there being some truth out there of which he is not aware. On the contrary. An atheist, at least a thinking atheist, is ever alert to to the possibility of newly discovered truth. But he refuses to speculate about it, refuses to have faith in it, until he sees it, smells it, touches it. So atheism is really the converse of faith. It is most emphatically not an act of faith.

In other words a religion … based in the belief of some thing, in this case that truth may only be verified by scientific method.

Truth is relative, especially scientific truth. Scientific truths 100, 50, 10 and even 5 years ago are more often proved false than they are proved unassailable! IMO it requires greater faith to trust in science than religion requires ... it most certainly does require acts of faith in the purest sense.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The atheists' Bible ought to be the epic poem "The Way Things Are" by Lucretius, a Roman philospher who lived during Augustus' time. There the atheist's perspective is described much more eloquently and clearly than I ever could do. (A snippet from the poem is my signature on CB, partly as a tease.) As Harold Bloom attests, this often ignored work is in the pantheon with the best parts of the Bible, Shakespeare's King Lear, Dante's Divine Comedy, Milton's Paradise Lost, and the Illiad, as the greatest works of Western Civilization. It is an easy and delightful, even liberating, read.

Hades, you even have your own scripture!!

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

By the way, I don't regard myself an atheist. But I do appreciate the perspective and how it has been constantly misrepresented by religious folks.

I did not mean to imply you are an atheist or even agnostic.

[tooblue]

Consider the irony of your post -you argue with such fervor I might regard you as zealous … a religious zealot!

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is a fascinating expose, but it is very two-dimensional, which by nature of its inaccuracy falls flat on its face.

Restating the argument, it runs this way: there are two base camps of thought about how the world and cosmos operate (1) those based on Hebraic concept of God, and (2) secular humanists. Seattle limits these groups for the western world, and then posits that the philosophers helped us break out of the strangleholds of Hebraic concepts into a more enlightened state of secular humanism.

Well, as I am certain Seattle recognizes, his world he just created is a mythical world, not reality. We live in a more complex philosophical world, a world of differential calculus, not Euclidian geometry.

First, the Hebraic world was never one of consensus. If one examines Jewish intellectuals alone, no one agrees or agreed. If Seattle is only arguing, a one on one relationship with God was not universally accepted even by Jewish intellectuals.

Second, enlightenment was not solely are response to the Hebraic concept of God, but simply man's search for knowledge in many disciplines. And it's not true that those philosophers cited by Seattle universally rejected the Hebraic concept of God, but probably have done much to refine what areas are the responsibility of science and what the parametees of religion.

What is philosophy? It started off broader than it is today. Metaphsics, beyond physics. Descartes tried to hypthesize about some organ in the brain the linked the spiritual with the physical. Plato and Aristotle posited many things which weren't true.

It is simply a false statement that secular humanism is the advanced state of knowledge that has supplanted its predecessor. Knowledge of the physical world is not really the realm of most spiritual guidance, but rather a moral philosophy is the realm of spiritualism. We cannot ignore the physical world, but the two can live together in harmony and they are not mutually exclusive. That seems to be the basic argument of secular humanism, but since it is a vacuum, devoid any real substance, it is my view, it will die as truth continues to emerge, and a new contemporary philosophy will emerge. Meanwhile, we troglodite Hebraic concepts of God will continue to thrive and learn more of the world, inculcating all aspects of truth, evolving as it were, independent of the restraints of one secular philosophy over another.

I have several comments in response to this. First, of course the first group lacks consensus. I would not expect devout Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Moslems to be happy about being lumped into the same cateory. I submit they have more in common than they ackowledge; I guess what I'm really saying is that if you reject Joseph Smith you're really rejecting the whole Hebreic concept, whether you know it or not. You may drift around thinking there's some other "true church" out there but whatever fault you found with Mormonism you'll find similar kinds of faults with any organized religion, with Christianity itself. (Ever considered the worm eaten chain of custody for the New Testament? Its original authorship and the context influencing its evolution is a fascinating subject.)

Second, I never said the Enlightenment came about because of questions being raised about legitimacy of the Hebreic model. This would be putting the cart before the horse. The Enlightenment was about re-discovery of the power of empiricism, i.e., science (something the Greeks and Romans understood very well in their respective finest hours). What happened was that the Enlightenment led people to question the Hebreic model for the cosmos. This spiritual and intellectual torment in turn begat Kant, et al.

Of course the great philosphers of the Enlightenment didn't universally reject the Hebrew model (the vast majority did). As for their refining the model, I don't hear Kant et al. being discussed much over the pulpit at Mormon or Southern Baptist churches. Catholicism has quite a bit of truck with ancient philosphers. Mainline protestantism has taken an ecumenical route with respect to the philosphers, and you see where it has led these denominations--to ruin. Few belonging to these sects (whose bases are in Europe and the U.S. blue states) regularly go to church anymore. It seems that churches born of the Hebreic tradition need to remain fairly pure or they will whither away. On the other hand, more and more this takes them out of the mainstream. It's an insoluble dilema.

Finally, my post didn't make any value judgments about whether mankind is better or worse off or closer to the truth because of what I see as the inexorable trend eroding popular belief in the Hebrew model for God. My personal taste, however, is biased in favor of the current trend. I wouldn't have been a happy camper in Twelfth Century Spain or even late Nineteenth Century Salt Lake City.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have several comments in response to this. First, of course the first group lacks consensus. I would not expect devout Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Moslems to be happy about being lumped into the same cateory. I submit they have more in common than they ackowledge; I guess what I'm really saying is that if you reject Joseph Smith you're really rejecting the whole Hebreic concept, whether you know it or not. You may drift around thinking there's some other "true church" out there but whatever fault you found with Mormonism you'll find similar kinds of faults with any organized religion, with Christianity itself. (Ever considered the worm eaten chain of custody for the New Testament? It's original authorship and the context influencing its evolution is a fascinating subject.)

Second, I never said the Enlightenment came about because of questions being raised about legitimacy of the Hebreic model. This would be putting the cart before the horse. The Enlightenment was about re-discovery of the power of empiricism, i.e., science (something the Greeks and Romans understood very well in their respective finest hours). What happened was that the Enlightenment led people to question the Hebreic model for the cosmos. This spiritual and intellectual torment in turn begat Kant, et al.

Of course the great philosphers of the Enlightenment didn't universally reject the Hebrew model (the vast majority did). As for their refining the model, I don't hear Kant et al. being discussed much over the pulpit at Mormon or Southern Baptist churches. Catholicism has quite a bit of truck with ancient philosphers. Mainline protestantism has taken an ecumenical route with respect to the philosphers, and you see where it has led these denominations--to ruin. Few belonging to these sects (whose bases are in Europe and the U.S. states) regularly go to church anymore. It seems that churches born of the Hebreic tradition need to remain fairly pure or they will whither away. On the other hand, more and more this takes them out of the mainstream. It's an insoluble dilema.

Finally, my post didn't make any value judgments about whether mankind is better or worse off or closer to the truth because of what I see as the inexorable trend eroding popular belief in the Hebrew model for God. My personal taste, however, is biased in favor of the current trend. I wouldn't have been a happy camper in Twelfth Century Spain or even late Nineteenth Century Salt Lake City.

Perhaps I don't understand your definition of the Hebraic concept of God.

For me and my kind, Mormonism is a bridge between empiricism in matters of the physical world and faith for matters affecting the unseen world. Insofar as empiricism provides answers which can guide me in my daily life, we rely upon empirical results. Insofar as empirical data fails, I'll rely upon matters of faith.

Although I've read Kant, both in English and in German, his categorical imperative being the most famous construct which I remember, I'll admit I don't remember his outlook on Hebraicism.

Are you attributing "blind faith" ignoring the physical world to Hebraicism?

Do we really know how the Hebrews viewed their world, or are you really upon the Middle Ages outlook on Hebraicism?

The Hellenization of Hebrews also imposes another layer of complexity.

None of us moderners would fare well in the ancient world, we're much too undiplomatic and outspoken. That's why westerners often fail to understand the nuances of Middle Eastern cultures and societies.

Empirical models of faith have been extant for a long time. Perhaps you could be more specific as to your meaning.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Perhaps I don't understand your definition of the Hebraic concept of God.

I mean any organized religion with roots however distant in Judaism.

[Archaea]

So are you simply distinguishing between empiricism and non-empiricism?

Are we engaging in the apriori and aposteriori debate?

If so, I reject Cartesian metaphysics, and believe all matter has substance, and that the source of all knowledge is empirical, if viewed in an eternal sense.

Sometimes apriori knowledge appears to come out of the blue, hence amazing revelations like the Benzene ring, but in actuality, it's just our soul perceiving through the veil to remember things we already learned empirically in the pre-existence. Not to a pure earth empiricist, this is distasteful, because in our short lives here, we can't replicate this event, but still, it makes sense to me and explains otherwise inexplicable events.

I found a brief statement which reminds me what I learned or thought I learned long ago.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cf.../book_id/1519/

[Archaea]

By rejection of Cartesian metaphysics, I of course refer to his dualistic approach to matter and spirit.

Here's an interesting summary of a work on Descartes.

http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/facul.../c.p.zijlstra/