Ethical monotheism

buckethead · Post by **buckethead** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:20 am

A buddhist monk takes a vow of silence where he is allowed only two words every 10 years.

He diligently practices his religion for the first decade when the head monk brings him into his quarters to get his two words. The monk simply says:

"food cold"

The head monk records his response and sends him back to meditate. Another 10 years go by and, again, the head monk brings him in. This time the monk only utters:

"bed hard"

The head monk thanks him and sends him back on his way. Another decade rolls by and the 30-year monk comes in and says:

"I quit"

The head monk replies: "Well, no shit, you've been bitching ever since you got here"

___________ · Post by **___________** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:54 am

Gav · Post by **Gav** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:22 am

ecalpal wrote:
Hebrew Hammer wrote:So far I've definined and briefly commented on atheism, materialism, etc.; good-life and right-action ethics; and belief that entails action. Those concepts will recur in the discussion that follows.

Judaism's first five principles of belief are universal. The first principle is that God created the world. If you accept Sinai revelation, this one's pretty easy. But if not, you have to turn to reason to consider it. Here's the argument:

One question that seems unanswerable is why there's something rather than nothing. Where did matter and energy come from?

The materialist might say that "nothing" doesn't exist; only things we can perceive exist. Our perception can extend back only to the big bang, and to ask about anything before that is fruitless metaphysics (or, if it can be tested, theoretical physics). The logical empiricist, using similar reasoning, might say that the question is meaningless because it asks about something that can't be perceived and tested. The agnostic might say "I don't know; it's just as reasonable to assume that matter and energy are eternal or some other explanation other than a creating God." The atheist might say, "I don't know, but I do know that the answer is not "because God created it."

All those answers are reasonable, but they seem to me to be cribbed. They cut off the exploration of what is a reasonable, and I think the most likely, explanation: There is a force beyond our comprehension that created something from nothing, and that force is what we call God. To recognize that possibility is an opening to explore it, and to try to figure out whether there is a purpose to this creation or whether it's, say, more like a meaningless random number generator.

Given our human consciousness, intellect, emotions, and our capacity for awe and a sense of transendence, I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, you're not living up to your full human potential. And given the possibility that this is a belief that could entail action -- living life with an acquired compass -- I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, that you are morally cutting yourself off what could be the best guide for living.

So, to sum, the notion that God created the world is the most likely explanation of existence, though not one that can be scientifically proved. Part of the good life entails exploring this possibility with open heart and mind.
To write off the first explanations--or acceptance of one not existing--and then make a big logical leap of faith, deem it most likely, and provide no further explanation.

Your intellect, emotions, awe and sense of transcendence could be byproducts of your upbringing. If not that, then heavily influenced by it.

Kids are easily convinced of most things. You provide them with the idea that accepting things at face value is OK--what happens when they question their beliefs to understand them? How are you equipping them for this task?

They aren't equipping them. If they did this most religions would have died out years ago. He said earlier they are given 'space' to question their faith but even that is probably a tactic to reinforce the brainwashing.

The Cunning Stunt · Post by **The Cunning Stunt** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:56 pm

Gav wrote:
ecalpal wrote:
Hebrew Hammer wrote:So far I've definined and briefly commented on atheism, materialism, etc.; good-life and right-action ethics; and belief that entails action. Those concepts will recur in the discussion that follows.

Judaism's first five principles of belief are universal. The first principle is that God created the world. If you accept Sinai revelation, this one's pretty easy. But if not, you have to turn to reason to consider it. Here's the argument:

One question that seems unanswerable is why there's something rather than nothing. Where did matter and energy come from?

The materialist might say that "nothing" doesn't exist; only things we can perceive exist. Our perception can extend back only to the big bang, and to ask about anything before that is fruitless metaphysics (or, if it can be tested, theoretical physics). The logical empiricist, using similar reasoning, might say that the question is meaningless because it asks about something that can't be perceived and tested. The agnostic might say "I don't know; it's just as reasonable to assume that matter and energy are eternal or some other explanation other than a creating God." The atheist might say, "I don't know, but I do know that the answer is not "because God created it."

All those answers are reasonable, but they seem to me to be cribbed. They cut off the exploration of what is a reasonable, and I think the most likely, explanation: There is a force beyond our comprehension that created something from nothing, and that force is what we call God. To recognize that possibility is an opening to explore it, and to try to figure out whether there is a purpose to this creation or whether it's, say, more like a meaningless random number generator.

Given our human consciousness, intellect, emotions, and our capacity for awe and a sense of transendence, I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, you're not living up to your full human potential. And given the possibility that this is a belief that could entail action -- living life with an acquired compass -- I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, that you are morally cutting yourself off what could be the best guide for living.

So, to sum, the notion that God created the world is the most likely explanation of existence, though not one that can be scientifically proved. Part of the good life entails exploring this possibility with open heart and mind.
To write off the first explanations--or acceptance of one not existing--and then make a big logical leap of faith, deem it most likely, and provide no further explanation.

Your intellect, emotions, awe and sense of transcendence could be byproducts of your upbringing. If not that, then heavily influenced by it.

Kids are easily convinced of most things. You provide them with the idea that accepting things at face value is OK--what happens when they question their beliefs to understand them? How are you equipping them for this task?
They aren't equipping them. If they did this most religions would have died out years ago. He said earlier they are given 'space' to question their faith but even that is probably a tactic to reinforce the brainwashing.

Exactly. I doubt his explanation goes any further to the kids. Thus, in other words, to sum, my explanation is correct and acceptable because I believe it to be so.

Right after making an appeal to our human intellect as part of justifying an intellectually lazy argument.

Hebrew Hammer · Post by **Hebrew Hammer** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:37 pm

ecalpal wrote:
Hebrew Hammer wrote:So far I've definined and briefly commented on atheism, materialism, etc.; good-life and right-action ethics; and belief that entails action. Those concepts will recur in the discussion that follows.

Judaism's first five principles of belief are universal. The first principle is that God created the world. If you accept Sinai revelation, this one's pretty easy. But if not, you have to turn to reason to consider it. Here's the argument:

One question that seems unanswerable is why there's something rather than nothing. Where did matter and energy come from?

The materialist might say that "nothing" doesn't exist; only things we can perceive exist. Our perception can extend back only to the big bang, and to ask about anything before that is fruitless metaphysics (or, if it can be tested, theoretical physics). The logical empiricist, using similar reasoning, might say that the question is meaningless because it asks about something that can't be perceived and tested. The agnostic might say "I don't know; it's just as reasonable to assume that matter and energy are eternal or some other explanation other than a creating God." The atheist might say, "I don't know, but I do know that the answer is not "because God created it."

All those answers are reasonable, but they seem to me to be cribbed. They cut off the exploration of what is a reasonable, and I think the most likely, explanation: There is a force beyond our comprehension that created something from nothing, and that force is what we call God. To recognize that possibility is an opening to explore it, and to try to figure out whether there is a purpose to this creation or whether it's, say, more like a meaningless random number generator.

Given our human consciousness, intellect, emotions, and our capacity for awe and a sense of transendence, I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, you're not living up to your full human potential. And given the possibility that this is a belief that could entail action -- living life with an acquired compass -- I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, that you are morally cutting yourself off what could be the best guide for living.

So, to sum, the notion that God created the world is the most likely explanation of existence, though not one that can be scientifically proved. Part of the good life entails exploring this possibility with open heart and mind.
To write off the first explanations--or acceptance of one not existing--and then make a big logical leap of faith, deem it most likely, and provide no further explanation.

Your intellect, emotions, awe and sense of transcendence could be byproducts of your upbringing. If not that, then heavily influenced by it.

Kids are easily convinced of most things. You provide them with the idea that accepting things at face value is OK--what happens when they question their beliefs to understand them? How are you equipping them for this task?

I gave you my view and an argument in a few sentences. If you want a book, there are plenty out there. Thomas Nagel, one of the world's leading philosophers today, just wrote Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.

But the argument at its core is very simple. Do you believe in a different answer? Do you think the materialist or logical empiricist view makes more sense, or that it makes just as much sense to say that matter and energy are eternal?

OUr intellect, emotions, awe and sense of transendence are heavily influenced by our environment. But they also appear to be in each of us as ways of perceiving and acting in the world. And they also appear to be potentialities in each of us, such that we can say that we can lead fuller, richer lives by developing them.

Hebrew Hammer · Post by **Hebrew Hammer** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:53 pm

ecalpal wrote:
Gav wrote:
ecalpal wrote:
Hebrew Hammer wrote:So far I've definined and briefly commented on atheism, materialism, etc.; good-life and right-action ethics; and belief that entails action. Those concepts will recur in the discussion that follows.

Judaism's first five principles of belief are universal. The first principle is that God created the world. If you accept Sinai revelation, this one's pretty easy. But if not, you have to turn to reason to consider it. Here's the argument:

One question that seems unanswerable is why there's something rather than nothing. Where did matter and energy come from?

The materialist might say that "nothing" doesn't exist; only things we can perceive exist. Our perception can extend back only to the big bang, and to ask about anything before that is fruitless metaphysics (or, if it can be tested, theoretical physics). The logical empiricist, using similar reasoning, might say that the question is meaningless because it asks about something that can't be perceived and tested. The agnostic might say "I don't know; it's just as reasonable to assume that matter and energy are eternal or some other explanation other than a creating God." The atheist might say, "I don't know, but I do know that the answer is not "because God created it."

All those answers are reasonable, but they seem to me to be cribbed. They cut off the exploration of what is a reasonable, and I think the most likely, explanation: There is a force beyond our comprehension that created something from nothing, and that force is what we call God. To recognize that possibility is an opening to explore it, and to try to figure out whether there is a purpose to this creation or whether it's, say, more like a meaningless random number generator.

Given our human consciousness, intellect, emotions, and our capacity for awe and a sense of transendence, I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, you're not living up to your full human potential. And given the possibility that this is a belief that could entail action -- living life with an acquired compass -- I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, that you are morally cutting yourself off what could be the best guide for living.

So, to sum, the notion that God created the world is the most likely explanation of existence, though not one that can be scientifically proved. Part of the good life entails exploring this possibility with open heart and mind.
To write off the first explanations--or acceptance of one not existing--and then make a big logical leap of faith, deem it most likely, and provide no further explanation.

Your intellect, emotions, awe and sense of transcendence could be byproducts of your upbringing. If not that, then heavily influenced by it.

Kids are easily convinced of most things. You provide them with the idea that accepting things at face value is OK--what happens when they question their beliefs to understand them? How are you equipping them for this task?
They aren't equipping them. If they did this most religions would have died out years ago. He said earlier they are given 'space' to question their faith but even that is probably a tactic to reinforce the brainwashing.
Exactly. I doubt his explanation goes any further to the kids. Thus, in other words, to sum, my explanation is correct and acceptable because I believe it to be so.

Right after making an appeal to our human intellect as part of justifying an intellectually lazy argument.

This takes me away from the argument, and goes to how to teach Sunday School. My view is that

1. Too often kids compartmentalize religion and life. Religion is what they learn at Sunday School and what they do at religious services and on religious holidays and life events like birth, marriage and death. Then there's regular life, and the two exist side by side.

2. They also drink in today's culture, which is rational and secular, and dismisses religion as brainwashing or ridicules it as Adam riding dinosaurs.

3. I also don't expect them to be the equivalent of graduate students in philosophy mastering all the arguments.

4. So I try to show them that believing in God-with-ethical-expectations is (a) rational and (b) the stronger argument than atheism, materialism, etc.

5. I also try to show them that "I don't care" doesn't cut it because this is the sort of belief that should logically lead to action.

6. So, if I succeed, they have a comfort level that it's OK to believe, and that the folks who scream brainwashing or ridicule religion are either uneducated or malicious, and that anyone with good faith would be open to ther reasonableness of belief.

7. Further, if I succeed, I give them the foundation to explore the tradition and to incorporate it in their everyday lives. It becomes real.

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:02 pm

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:03 pm

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:04 pm

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:04 pm

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:10 pm

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:15 pm

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:16 pm

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:18 pm

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:23 pm

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:46 pm

ecalpal wrote:To write off the first explanations--or acceptance of one not existing--and then make a big logical leap of faith, deem it most likely, and provide no further explanation.

Your intellect, emotions, awe and sense of transcendence could be byproducts of your upbringing. If not that, then heavily influenced by it.

Kids are easily convinced of most things. You provide them with the idea that accepting things at face value is OK--what happens when they question their beliefs to understand them? How are you equipping them for this task?

There's a big difference between an understanding of faith and religion that is appropriate for a child, one that is appropriate for a teenager, and one that is appropriate for an adult.

Thud · Post by **Thud** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:10 pm

Hebrew Hammer wrote:
This takes me away from the argument, and goes to how to teach Sunday School. My view is that

1. Too often kids compartmentalize religion and life. Religion is what they learn at Sunday School and what they do at religious services and on religious holidays and life events like birth, marriage and death. Then there's regular life, and the two exist side by side.

2. They also drink in today's culture, which is rational and secular, and dismisses religion as brainwashing or ridicules it as Adam riding dinosaurs.

3. I also don't expect them to be the equivalent of graduate students in philosophy mastering all the arguments.

4. So I try to show them that believing in God-with-ethical-expectations is (a) rational and (b) the stronger argument than atheism, materialism, etc.

5. I also try to show them that "I don't care" doesn't cut it because this is the sort of belief that should logically lead to action.

6. So, if I succeed, they have a comfort level that it's OK to believe, and that the folks who scream brainwashing or ridicule religion are either uneducated or malicious, and that anyone with good faith would be open to ther reasonableness of belief.

7. Further, if I succeed, I give them the foundation to explore the tradition and to incorporate it in their everyday lives. It becomes real.

Despite the intellectual gobbledygook about how they should think, feel and potentiate, what they really learn is that they had better believe what you want them to, or at least pretend to, or they will be shunned by their parents, peers and community.

They don't choose to believe because you're building a compelling argument, they believe/conform because they "have to", and then they use the tools you give the to feel justified in swimming with the current.

There's nothing exceptional about that to Jews per se, it's just how cultural conformity works.

Hebrew Hammer · Post by **Hebrew Hammer** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:25 pm

Thud wrote:
Hebrew Hammer wrote:
This takes me away from the argument, and goes to how to teach Sunday School. My view is that

1. Too often kids compartmentalize religion and life. Religion is what they learn at Sunday School and what they do at religious services and on religious holidays and life events like birth, marriage and death. Then there's regular life, and the two exist side by side.

2. They also drink in today's culture, which is rational and secular, and dismisses religion as brainwashing or ridicules it as Adam riding dinosaurs.

3. I also don't expect them to be the equivalent of graduate students in philosophy mastering all the arguments.

4. So I try to show them that believing in God-with-ethical-expectations is (a) rational and (b) the stronger argument than atheism, materialism, etc.

5. I also try to show them that "I don't care" doesn't cut it because this is the sort of belief that should logically lead to action.

6. So, if I succeed, they have a comfort level that it's OK to believe, and that the folks who scream brainwashing or ridicule religion are either uneducated or malicious, and that anyone with good faith would be open to ther reasonableness of belief.

7. Further, if I succeed, I give them the foundation to explore the tradition and to incorporate it in their everyday lives. It becomes real.
Despite the intellectual gobbledygook about how they should think, feel and potentiate, what they really learn is that they had better believe what you want them to, or at least pretend to, or they will be shunned by their parents, peers and community.

They don't choose to believe because you're building a compelling argument, they believe/conform because they "have to", and then they use the tools you give the to feel justified in swimming with the current.

There's nothing exceptional about that to Jews per se, it's just how cultural conformity works.

I'll venture a guess that you haven't taught teenagers in regular or sunday school.

Thud · Post by **Thud** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:34 pm

Hebrew Hammer wrote:
Thud wrote:
Hebrew Hammer wrote:
This takes me away from the argument, and goes to how to teach Sunday School. My view is that

1. Too often kids compartmentalize religion and life. Religion is what they learn at Sunday School and what they do at religious services and on religious holidays and life events like birth, marriage and death. Then there's regular life, and the two exist side by side.

2. They also drink in today's culture, which is rational and secular, and dismisses religion as brainwashing or ridicules it as Adam riding dinosaurs.

3. I also don't expect them to be the equivalent of graduate students in philosophy mastering all the arguments.

4. So I try to show them that believing in God-with-ethical-expectations is (a) rational and (b) the stronger argument than atheism, materialism, etc.

5. I also try to show them that "I don't care" doesn't cut it because this is the sort of belief that should logically lead to action.

6. So, if I succeed, they have a comfort level that it's OK to believe, and that the folks who scream brainwashing or ridicule religion are either uneducated or malicious, and that anyone with good faith would be open to ther reasonableness of belief.

7. Further, if I succeed, I give them the foundation to explore the tradition and to incorporate it in their everyday lives. It becomes real.
Despite the intellectual gobbledygook about how they should think, feel and potentiate, what they really learn is that they had better believe what you want them to, or at least pretend to, or they will be shunned by their parents, peers and community.

They don't choose to believe because you're building a compelling argument, they believe/conform because they "have to", and then they use the tools you give the to feel justified in swimming with the current.

There's nothing exceptional about that to Jews per se, it's just how cultural conformity works.
I'll venture a guess that you haven't taught teenagers in regular or sunday school.

point taken. but while your objective might be to reach these kids at a given point in time, the truth is that you are working within a structure and milieu that's in place for a lifetime, at least in conservative circles. and outside of conservative circles, what chance have you really got against the larger cultural conforms?

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:46 pm

Kraj 2.0 · Post by **Kraj 2.0** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:52 pm

Kazuya Mishima wrote:

Is there an uglier people? These chicks look like some kind of orcs that haven't seen the Sun in an eon.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:56 pm

Kraj 2.0 wrote:
Kazuya Mishima wrote:
Is there an uglier people? These chicks look like some kind of orcs that haven't seen the Sun in an eon.

:snigger

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:06 pm

Kraj 2.0 wrote:Is there an uglier people?

Yup...

Kraj 2.0 · Post by **Kraj 2.0** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:26 pm

Kazuya Mishima wrote:
Kraj 2.0 wrote:Is there an uglier people?
Yup...

Honestly, I don't find them uglier. Throw those three gremlins from the "shallomin'" picture into the Kalahari for a decade and see what they come out as. I guarantee it'd be a helluva lot worse than the nogs in the pic.

IGX

Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism

Re: Ethical monotheism