Sure, I've trashed a lot of religious arguments in my time and railed on a lot of christians, etc. I have over my time here though, come to realize a few things about god - from an evolutionary psychology perspective. For instance, it was brought up a few days ago in another thread that "god is one of the worst inventions EVER". I vehemently disagree and would like to state why and discuss it here.

While I personally do not at all believe in god, the concept and believe are incredibly powerful. It is my opinion that it serves two fundamental purposes that have basically guaranteed the survival of our species over the millenia. Basically, the strong belief in god offers incredible personal strength and the religions that are derived based upon various god concepts promotes localized social unity.

Personal Strength:

Generally speaking when it comes to "accomplishement" in general, tasks that require will, perseverence and/or greatness in any amount - an individual's doubt is the most significant hurdle to overcome. In general, I cannot do something that I don't believe that I can do. God offers a coach without requiring an actual coach. It's an internal ideal projected to objectivity, more firmly the stronger the belief/faith of the individual in question. This belief offers an avenue of mental fortitude that may not be available to a non-believer. So you can lift the boulder off your friend because you believe god wills it, when otherwise you may shy away by the seemingly rational "that rock is way too heavy for me to lift". God is an enabler. This internal projection to the external world allows humans to rise above their percieved limitations. Their belief can translate to ascendance in their personal context. Belief in god's will is more powerful than their own will. Though it's really just their own will, this meme offers personal power.

I haven't even touched on the whole "getting past mental difficulties of lost family, etc", in which case the strong beleif in god assists similarly. It can put a mind at ease that searches aimlessly for a reason to justify tragedy. God is the reason, and in the case of a strong faith - god is enough.

Social Unity:

While god can offer individuals power they may not be able to find otherwise, when in the form of a religion - god provides a common cause. The strength of humanity in terms of its capacity to survive is basically: intellect, opposable thumbs and the capacity to cooperate. Intellect and opposable thumbs are given, but the propensity for cooperation is not necessarily so. Humans can choose how they wish to apply themselves. Given the subjectivity of their stimulous, if they are not assimilated into some abstract framework, they by no means bound to participate in the welfare of the whole. God provides a very powerful framework indeed. It explains everything in terms of one simple concept - your mutherscratchinskydaddy. God fills the gaps between subjective takes on reality, binding them all together under the rituals and beliefs of whatever religious system that was created to prop the deity to its proper pedistal. God gives leaders the power to accomplish great things, by enabling willful cooperation of those bound by the religion. People are willing to die for god. True believers will do ANYTHING for god. This allows localized social groups the power of social unity, amplifying the force of an individual believer into the force of an army thereof. That's powerful stuff.

As I see it, these two main contributors from the concept of god have allowed an acceleration of societies world-wide - not to mention fueling their clashes. While some may see clashes of religion as "horrible" (and I would agree), they are natural. They are an expression of the redistribution of divergent values, and could not be avoided. The imbalance in the equation (so to speak) forced the situations to resolve themselves.

So there. God, with no physicality whatsoever has allowed humanity to succeed like no other species.

Discuss.

Without God people can, do and will find their "Personal Strength" within them.
Not only that, but I actually think the strength that comes from a belief in yourself is more potent, real, tangible and effective than strength that comes from belief in God.

Social unity can and should be derrived from a common goal to succeed through cooperation and hard work.

In both of these cases, belief in God serves to work against the community and person.

In order for it to be a benefit, doesn't that require that it gives humans something they can not get otherwise, or at least something better than what they have to offer themselves?

Let me put it this way...

You can either find happiness and peace withing yourself through positive action, introspective meditation, healthy living, fostering strong self-esteem and other methods of working on yourself and your view of the world.
Or you can take an anti-depressant, and ignore all the rest.

Without God people can, do and will find their "Personal Strength" within them.

Oh? For what reason? To what end? Sure maybe some people do, but the masses? I don't think so. Approx. 10% of humans have "leadership qualities". The rest find little without guidance. Without god people could, might and should find their "personal strength", but the many need a "higher purpose" as motivation to bother.

Not only that, but I actually think the strength that comes from a belief in yourself is more potent, real, tangible and effective than strength that comes from belief in God.

That's because you don't believe in god. I don't think there's a difference really. It all comes from the individual, it's just the route that's in quesiton.

Social unity can and should be derrived from a common goal to succeed through cooperation and hard work.

Can and should don't cut it.

In both of these cases, belief in God serves to work against the community and person.

I cite history as strong evidence to the contrary. Certainly there's been a lot of that, but the resultant empires and modern world are a result of humans stringing god memes along the ages.

In order for it to be a benefit, doesn't that require that it gives humans something they can not get otherwise, or at least something better than what they have to offer themselves?

Uhm, you are putting yourself as the model human it seems. YOU might be able to get it otherwise, but I don't think "the masses" can at all. They offer this to themselves via their history and compulsion for its persistence. At least that's my opinion at the moment.

It's not even necessarily "the masses" I suppose. It's just certain personality types I think. Meh. People obviously need god, and I'd say it's been a very fruitful tool for advancement through the ages. I would say also that the time for the need of such concepts is past, what's left is "cultural lag". Regardless I think the meme has served humanity well.

Wes, there is no doubt that God as a concept has facilitated the generation of civilisation and the pursuit of living without fear. The need to have a symbolic way of coping with what we do not know and because of that lack of knowing instinctively fear. [ issues such as our mortality ]

However the concept of God has come at a price as well as we learn more and more about our reality our need to reliquish our dependancy on superstition causes us all some angst.

As to drawing strength in the face of adversity or need it is often the case that symbols of strength can also aloow us to tap into reserves we did not necessrilly know we had.

We as humans do this in so many ways and not just with notions of God. For example a golfer may gain inspiration from "Tiger" Woods, or a musician from NIrvana, or scientist froim Einstien. Of course morally we have greater dificulty in finding inspiration, however many works of literature and film offer such. The Bible is also a work of literature that can and does offer much guidance whether one is religious or not and using God as an ideal affords a direction for the "masses" to move towards.

So using God as a way of fortifying oneself when faced with adversity for those persons who have not the desire to do the philosophical legwork is a easy and simple way of coping with such things.

However as One_Raven has pointed out once one does the leg work and works out a significant personal life philosophy, the need for a god like symbol is not so strong but still present as we use our personal ideal as a symbol of our ideal thus "God" becomes more a reflection of your own personal ideal and not the structured ideologue that religion promotes for those less inclined to do the work.

In evolutionary terms it is only recently that atheism and agnotism has become more acceptable in a general sense and I would suggest that in the future will become more the norm rather than the exception as peoples religious needs tend more and more to a Panthenistic pov.

I do realise that your thread starter post is talking from an evolutionary perspective with direct and subtle reference to an extended period of human history. It is in this context that I have responded.

Wes,
Yes, they have used God for these things, historically.
I do not deny that.
The fact that it is possible to not use God for such things, implies they do not "need" him or it.
People do/believe/act how they are taught and raised most often.
Children raised as Atheistic Buddhists do not feel the "need" for a God to provide these things to them.
In a predominately Buddhist culture, "the masses" do not need God.
And, in my opinon, are better off for not needing him, and rarther being self-reliant in the personal and collective sense.

Without God people can, do and will find their "Personal Strength" within them.
Not only that, but I actually think the strength that comes from a belief in yourself is more potent, real, tangible and effective than strength that comes from belief in God.

Like hell, yeah.

Once you get assaulted and raped, overpowered by other people or an animal or natural forces -- this will teach you a profound lesson of how helpless and powerless you really are in this universe.

People do/believe/act how they are taught and raised most often.
Children raised as Atheistic Buddhists do not feel the "need" for a God to provide these things to them.
In a predominately Buddhist culture, "the masses" do not need God.
And, in my opinon, are better off for not needing him, and rarther being self-reliant in the personal and collective sense.

Self-reliant? With all that karma, and not knowing what exactly it is?

Like they say, "If you're a Christian, God will get you, and if you're a Buddhist, karma will get you."

Really, Buddhists may not speak of God, but they have other ways of understanding that make them just as dependanble on other beings and events.

You are just as helpless and powerless as anyone else, thus you are just as self-sufficient and powerful as anyone else.

Besides, how does believing in God make you any more powerful on earth or any less suceptible to rape/attack/natural disasters?
You still get the SAME amount of physical damage done to your person whether you believe in God or not. Belief in God is not some magical force field.

And as far as psychological...
Not only do people who do not believe in God also recover from traumatic events.
In fact, a positive outlook, belief in yourself and mind-over-matter have proven to accelerate the healing process.

How does God make make you more powerful in these instances you brought up in ways that belief in yourself will not?

You can either find happiness and peace withing yourself through positive action, introspective meditation, healthy living, fostering strong self-esteem and other methods of working on yourself and your view of the world.

On what basis can one do such things? With what motivation?
Why should one meditate?


Also, the Christian concept of God, as I understand it, does not oppose what you are saying above.

Really, Buddhists may not speak of God, but they have other ways of understanding that make them just as dependanble on other beings and events.

What is your point?
I was not saying the Buddhism is better or worse than Christianty.
I am simply saying that people raised where "the masses" do not believe in God, do not feel teh need to believe in God, in opposition to what Wes was claiming.

Besides, I said self-reliant in the collective sense as well. What I meant by that was self-reliant as a people, not just a person. A people who believe that other people is all they have to rely on, rather than dieties.

Besides, how does believing in God make you any more powerful on earth or any less suceptible to rape/attack/natural disasters?
You still get the SAME amount of physical damage done to your person whether you believe in God or not. Belief in God is not some magical force field.

It's a question of identity. If you identify with your own strength, then you will lose your identity once this strength is overpowered. And soon enough, it can and will be overpowered.
If you place your identity with God, for example, then your identity won't be threatened no matter what happens to you.


Not only do people who do not believe in God also recover from traumatic events.

No one has stated otherwise.


In fact, a positive outlook, belief in yourself and mind-over-matter have proven to accelerate the healing process.

WHY a positive outlook? On what basis is one to have a positive outlook?


How does God make make you more powerful in these instances you brought up in ways that belief in yourself will not?

When I don't depend on myself and my limited and fluctuating abilities for who I am, I can feel secure for my identity. Depending on my sense of self, I am always endangered.

On what basis can one do such things?
I don't understand the question.
Are you asking me to prove it is possible to impriove your outlook and health through meditiation?

With what motivation?
Self improvement.
I thought I made that clear.

Why should one meditate?
Self improvement.
I thought I made that clear.

Also, the Christian concept of God, as I understand it, does not oppose what you are saying above.
Where did I say it does? :bugeye:

You seem to be awfully defensive about this.
I have not said that Christians are right or wrong, that God does or does not exist.
Wes put forward the belief in God as a psycho-social tool and a necessity for humans to have a sense of empowerment and a common belief which pushes people to cooperate.
I disagree.
Whether or not people need to believe in a God, in the psychological sense, to derrive personal strength or to form communities has no effect what-so-ever on whether the Christian ideal of God does or does not exist.

Really, Buddhists may not speak of God, but they have other ways of understanding that make them just as dependanble on other beings and events.

What is your point?
I was not saying the Buddhism is better or worse than Christianty.
I am simply saying that people raised where "the masses" do not believe in God, do not feel teh need to believe in God, in opposition to what Wes was claiming.

Yes. But they have their "equivalent" of God.

What God "does" in the Christian understanding, karma and awareness "do" in Buddhism.
Basically, it's just different conceptualizations and different names of the same phenomenon -- that humans are dependent beings and not in control.

It's a question of identity. If you identify with your own strength, then you will lose your identity once this strength is overpowered. And soon enough, it can and will be overpowered.
I agree with you.
To have your identity so intrinsically tied to your physical prowess and powers is not a healthy outlook and not a healthy, consistent
I HAVE been overpowered and I have NOT lost my identity.
But that's because I am a lot more than my muscles and physical power.

If you place your identity with God, for example, then your identity won't be threatened no matter what happens to you.
If you replace your identity with God you have already LOST your identity.
You are relinquishing your identity, your strength, yourself in fears that it will be injured.
I think that's absurd.
Being attacked does not have to destroy who you are, and even if you relinquish all that to God, your psyche can STILL be destroyed by being attacked.
This is teh reason so many people have "Crises of Faith" when being attacked, losing a loved one etc.
This God you have placed all your strength and opiower into has failed them, it has failed to protect them.
Besides, as I said, I am not saying it is wrong to believe in God, just that Wes's apparent idea that it is neccessary for making to progress and flourish is incorrect.

WHY a positive outlook? On what basis is one to have a positive outlook?
Why?
Because it is helpful. Because it is healthy.
Perhaps I do not understand the question?

When I don't depend on myself and my limited and fluctuating abilities for who I am, I can feel secure for my identity. Depending on my sense of self, I am always endangered.
Perhaps that's because you have poor self esteem.
No one is perfect, and difficulty will always face you.
Depending on yourself gives you the impetus to improve yourself.
The more you improve, and the more self reliant you become, the greater your faith in your abilities to achieve and succeed will become and the more you will improve as a result. It is an upward spiral.
Depending on God does not necessarily do that. "God is perfect, he will take care of me."

Yes. But they have their "equivalent" of God.

What God "does" in the Christian understanding, karma and awareness "do" in Buddhism.
Basically, it's just different conceptualizations and different names of the same phenomenon -- that humans are dependent beings and not in control.
Not quite.
God has intention, cognizance, wisdom, foresight, hindsight...
Karma is simply cause and effect of actions.
With Karma, uman beings ARE in control of their own destiny (just as in some flavors of Christianity, they are) but Karma is quite different from Abraham's God.

It's a question of identity. If you identify with your own strength, then you will lose your identity once this strength is overpowered. And soon enough, it can and will be overpowered.
If you place your identity with God, for example, then your identity won't be threatened no matter what happens to you.

My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).

peace

c20

Pardon all the typing errors.
I was running like mad for a few minutes there to try and keep up with you, water. :p
Now I don't feel like going back and fixing it all.

The short of what I was trying to say is this:
If you are grasping onto a belief in God resulting from fear of being hurt (again) not only are you selling yourself short and opening yourself even more widely to being hurt by not working on your own defenses, strengths (inner and outer) and further eroding your self-esteem, but your faith is hinged upon what God can do for you (protection) and is therefore on shaky ground that becomes more and more unstable as the cycle continues progressing towards being hurt (again) and once it happens (because, as you said, it is bound to), your faith gets shattered, because God didn't hold up his end of the bargain.
So, at this point, you have little to no solid standing for any valid self-esteem, you have lost faith in God, you have lost faith in yourself and you have a hell of a time finding the strength and will to begin building yourself up again without something to believe in or depend on.
I've seen it happen, and it's not pretty.

No, I am not saying it is inevitable, I am saying that it happens, and is facilitated by substituting self-esteem and faith in one's self with faith in God alone.

The short of what I was trying to say is this:
If you are grasping onto a belief in God resulting from fear of being hurt (again) not only are you selling yourself short and opening yourself even more widely to being hurt by not working on your own defenses, strengths (inner and outer) and further eroding your self-esteem, but your faith is hinged upon what God can do for you (protection) and is therefore on shaky ground that becomes more and more unstable as the cycle continues progressing towards being hurt (again) and once it happens (because, as you said, it is bound to), your faith gets shattered, because God didn't hold up his end of the bargain.
So, at this point, you have little to no solid standing for any valid self-esteem, you have lost faith in God, you have lost faith in yourself and you have a hell of a time finding the strength and will to begin building yourself up again without something to believe in or depend on.
I've seen it happen, and it's not pretty.

No, I am not saying it is inevitable, I am saying that it happens, and is facilitated by substituting self-esteem and faith in one's self with faith in God alone.

You've just described idiot faith in God. This is when a person believes they can exist separately from God, yet still put all their trust in God.

Not quite.
God has intention, cognizance, wisdom, foresight, hindsight...
Karma is simply cause and effect of actions.

I did not equate karma with God; I said that karma and awareness (in one understanding) "do" what God does (in some other understanding).


With Karma, uman beings ARE in control of their own destiny

Do you subscribe to the view of karma that if a person gets raped, for example, this is because they have been a rapist in the previous life?

There are different ways to understand karma.

You've just described idiot faith in God. This is when a person believes they can exist separately from God, yet still put all their trust in God.
I think it is what stems from putting all your faith in God and relying solely on God while not having any faith in yourself.

Perhaps you should elaborate a bit on "existing seperately from God".

I did not equate karma with God; I said that karma and awareness (in one understanding) "do" what God does (in some other understanding).
How so?
What "understandings"?

Do you subscribe to the view of karma that if a person gets raped, for example, this is because they have been a rapist in the previous life?

There are different ways to understand karma.
No I do not.
I think that is a widely held (I believe mostly Western) misconception of the Vedic Sages' Visions of Karma and what is taught by both the Vedas and the Dharma.
I think it runs directly against the grain of what the Buddha was teaching, in fact, and becomes a God-overseer in that inception.

One Raven,


I HAVE been overpowered and I have NOT lost my identity.
But that's because I am a lot more than my muscles and physical power.

What is this "a lot more"?


If you place your identity with God, for example, then your identity won't be threatened no matter what happens to you.

If you replace your identity with God you have already LOST your identity.

I said if you *place* your identity with God; I didn't say if you replace your identity with God.

You see, if one accepts that one is nothing without God, then this has a line of consequences, one of them being not cliniging to what one currently perceives as one's idetity.


You are relinquishing your identity, your strength, yourself in fears that it will be injured.
I think that's absurd.
Being attacked does not have to destroy who you are, and even if you relinquish all that to God, your psyche can STILL be destroyed by being attacked.

With your understanding of God and identity, I am sure this happens, yes.


This is teh reason so many people have "Crises of Faith" when being attacked, losing a loved one etc.
This God you have placed all your strength and opiower into has failed them, it has failed to protect them.

But I say that was wishful thinking, not faith.


Besides, as I said, I am not saying it is wrong to believe in God, just that Wes's apparent idea that it is neccessary for making to progress and flourish is incorrect.

No, I don't think it is incorrect.

I think your disagreement is artificial. Christians and Buddhists, for example, believe in roundabout the same things, they just conceptualize them differently. Both agree that humans are dependant beings, that they are not in control, both have a similar standard of ethics.

Different religions are are just different cars to the same goal.

In one space and time, belief in God indeed brought progress to the people.

I wouldn't say that it is exclusively belief in God that can bring about progress, but believing in God is one of the ways to progress.


WHY a positive outlook? On what basis is one to have a positive outlook?

Why?
Because it is helpful. Because it is healthy.
Perhaps I do not understand the question?

Apparently you don't understand the question ...

It is not self-evident that one wants to improve. The ways to improve are also not self-evident.
Humans have an innate desire to improve, but this desire is usually acted on as satisfying it via material means.

So now I want you to justify why not act on this desire via material means.


In Buddhism, they would say that unless one is fed up with samsaric cyclic existence, one will not genuinely desire improvement.
In Christianity, they would say that unless one is completely disappointed in the world, one will not genuinely desire improvement.

But until that, one will dabble on in existence trying to find worldly/samsaric means to improve, which only lead to more suffering and misery.

Now you tell me why not use those worldly/samsaric means to improve.


Perhaps that's because you have poor self esteem.

And how did that come to be ...


Depending on yourself gives you the impetus to improve yourself.

Prove this!


The more you improve, and the more self reliant you become, the greater your faith in your abilities to achieve and succeed will become and the more you will improve as a result. It is an upward spiral.

I think you are missing something very important here.
Are humans of dependent, or of independent origination?
Are we our thoughts?
What makes up our identity?
Do we own anything?


Depending on God does not necessarily do that. "God is perfect, he will take care of me."

This is a statement of idiot faith.

You've just described idiot faith in God. This is when a person believes they can exist separately from God, yet still put all their trust in God.

I think it is what stems from putting all your faith in God and relying solely on God while not having any faith in yourself.

Perhaps you should elaborate a bit on "existing seperately from God".

Believing that God is your Creator has a line of concequences for the way you view yourself and your place in the Creation.
If you believe that God is your Creator, then you can't simultaneously believe that you exist separately from God. If you find yourself doing so, then one of the two beliefs you supposedly hold isn't true for you.

I did not equate karma with God; I said that karma and awareness (in one understanding) "do" what God does (in some other understanding).
How so?
What "understandings"?

"Understandings" as in "worldviews, philosophies, religions".


Do you subscribe to the view of karma that if a person gets raped, for example, this is because they have been a rapist in the previous life?

There are different ways to understand karma.

No I do not.
I think that is a widely held (I believe mostly Western) misconception of the Vedic Sages' Visions of Karma and what is taught by both the Vedas and the Dharma.
I think it runs directly against the grain of what the Buddha was teaching, in fact, and becomes a God-overseer in that inception.

How then can you state that a person is in control of one's own destiny, via karma?

There are some schools that teach we know our karma -- from what happens to us.
But then other schools say we don't know what our karma is, and whether the karma we have is due to our works, or due to having inherited it.
If we don't know our karma, then we can't be in control of our destiny.

water,
I have to work right now, but I will read this soon.
In the mean time let me ask you two questions...
Can people have personal strength without a belief in God?
Can people have common ground, a sense of purpose and social unity without a belief in God?

water,
I have to work right now, but I will read this soon.
In the mean time let me ask you two questions...
Can people have personal strength without a belief in God?
Can people have common ground, a sense of purpose and social unity without a belief in God?

Yes, on both accounts. But under the condition that they believe something equally all-overarching and all-permeating.

What is this "a lot more"?
Besides my physical prowess?
The mental, emotional and spiritual aspects of my being, for starters.


I said if you *place* your identity with God; I didn't say if you replace your identity with God.
I don't see how you can do one without doing the other.[/quote]

You see, if one accepts that one is nothing without God, then this has a line of consequences, one of them being not cliniging to what one currently perceives as one's idetity.
Obviously.

With your understanding of God and identity, I am sure this happens, yes.
If one has faith in God because of fear of life this happens.

But I say that was wishful thinking, not faith.
I am certain they thought it was faith before it failed.
How can you be so sure of the difference?

I think your disagreement is artificial. Christians and Buddhists, for example, believe in roundabout the same things, they just conceptualize them differently.
I disagree.
I think their similarities are superficial, rather than their differences in this context.
But that's neither here nor there, being a matter of perspective.

I wouldn't say that it is exclusively belief in God that can bring about progress, but believing in God is one of the ways to progress.
By that reasoning you could say that a common belief in the wisdom of being the world's top automobile manufacturer could bring about the same results.
God has nothing to do with it.

Apparently you don't understand the question ...

It is not self-evident that one wants to improve. The ways to improve are also not self-evident.
Humans have an innate desire to improve, but this desire is usually acted on as satisfying it via material means.

So now I want you to justify why not act on this desire via material means.
What? I think you SHOULD act on this desire via material means.

In Buddhism, they would say that unless one is fed up with samsaric cyclic existence, one will not genuinely desire improvement.
In Christianity, they would say that unless one is completely disappointed in the world, one will not genuinely desire improvement.

But until that, one will dabble on in existence trying to find worldly/samsaric means to improve, which only lead to more suffering and misery.

Now you tell me why not use those worldly/samsaric means to improve.
As I said, I think you SHOULD use worldly/materialistic/samsaric methods of self improvement.
As I said, living a more healthy lifestyle, having a better self-image, etc.
These are worldly things with physical results.[/quote]


And how did that come to be ...
How would I know?
I don't know you.
I don't even know if it is true.
Perhaps it is.

Prove this!
No.
I can't prove it to you.
It can not be proven excpet through personal experience.

I think you are missing something very important here.
Are humans of dependent, or of independent origination?
Are we our thoughts?
What makes up our identity?
Do we own anything?
Our identity is all of who we are.
We own ourselves.
We are ultimately responsible for ourselves.
We, however, are not wholly independent.
We would not exist, likely could not survive and certainly would not be who we are without the influence of other humans.

This is a statement of idiot faith.
This is what stems from replacing faith in yourself with faith in God.

"Understandings" as in "worldviews, philosophies, religions".
I understaand that.
My question was regarding specifically how they were the same or similar.

How then can you state that a person is in control of one's own destiny, via karma?
Quite easily.
In a nutshell, "You reap what you sow".
This does not mean that if you abuse women you will come back as an abused woman.
It means that if you abuse women, you will suffer accordingly in this and your next life.
It is not a direct and exact "tit for tat" with some overseer watching over and taking notes.
It has at least two different vehicles and reaches.

Cause and effect: What you do will cause change in the worl around you and put other factors into play. If you poison the water supply, for an extreme example, generations to come, and the world and people in general, will suffer as a result. Indirect General Karma.
If you never come to terms with the guilt of the pain and death your poisoning caused, never find a way to forgive yourself and find your way past the pain it causes you, then the part of you that is passed to your next lifetime will cause you to begin your life with that burden already on your shoulders, and you will suffer emotionally, which spill to the rest of your life. Direct Specific Karma.

There are some schools that teach we know our karma -- from what happens to us.
But then other schools say we don't know what our karma is, and whether the karma we have is due to our works, or due to having inherited it.
They are both correct in my view.

If we don't know our karma, then we can't be in control of our destiny.
I disagree.
If you life a life of integrity and deal with emotional issues in a healthy productive way, you will not only start the next life without that burden on your shoulders, but you will be improving the world you are reborn into.

Yes, on both accounts. But under the condition that they believe something equally all-overarching and all-permeating.
...
By that reasoning you could say that a common belief in the wisdom of being the world's top automobile manufacturer could bring about the same results.
God has nothing to do with it.

One Raven,



I said if you *place* your identity with God; I didn't say if you replace your identity with God.

I don't see how you can do one without doing the other.

Placing your identity with God is to have your identity depend on God. This is not the same as replacing it with God.


If one has faith in God because of fear of life this happens.

Yes. But fear is not the only motivator for believing in God.
Fear may be a discovery mechanism though, for discovering God's impact on one.


But I say that was wishful thinking, not faith.

I am certain they thought it was faith before it failed.
How can you be so sure of the difference?

Personal experience proves the nature of faith, to each individual.
True faith never fails, this is what marks it.


I think your disagreement is artificial. Christians and Buddhists, for example, believe in roundabout the same things, they just conceptualize them differently.

I disagree.
I think their similarities are superficial, rather than their differences in this context.
But that's neither here nor there, being a matter of perspective.

It all depends on whether you investigate things "bottom up" or "top down".

I think we have an experience of life, and this same experience can be conceptualized differently, via different discourses. These discourses may then superifically differ, but are about the same thing, ultimately.


I wouldn't say that it is exclusively belief in God that can bring about progress, but believing in God is one of the ways to progress.

By that reasoning you could say that a common belief in the wisdom of being the world's top automobile manufacturer could bring about the same results.

I don't understand how you make this connection.
What do you understand by "progress"?


God has nothing to do with it.

Uh. You'd need to be God to adequately be able to state such a thing.


Apparently you don't understand the question ...

It is not self-evident that one wants to improve. The ways to improve are also not self-evident.
Humans have an innate desire to improve, but this desire is usually acted on as satisfying it via material means.

So now I want you to justify why not act on this desire via material means.

What? I think you SHOULD act on this desire via material means.

Really? Getting a better car, a better job, better friends, better food, more sex -- these things will lead you to progress spiritually, and make you happy?


As I said, I think you SHOULD use worldly/materialistic/samsaric methods of self improvement.
As I said, living a more healthy lifestyle, having a better self-image, etc.
These are worldly things with physical results.

It seems there has been a misunderstanding ...


And how did that come to be ...

How would I know?
I don't know you.
I don't even know if it is true.
Perhaps it is.

No, I'm wondering generally. How come some people have poor self-esteem? How come this can happen at all?


No.
I can't prove it to you.
It can not be proven excpet through personal experience.

I loves such answers. http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/uploads/post-771-1128846272.gif


Our identity is all of who we are.

What is that?


This is what stems from replacing faith in yourself with faith in God.

What is the self?


My question was regarding specifically how they were the same or similar.

I hope I've answered this above.


Quite easily.
In a nutshell, "You reap what you sow".
This does not mean that if you abuse women you will come back as an abused woman.
It means that if you abuse women, you will suffer accordingly in this and your next life.

But why would you abuse women? Just like that, out of an evil streak? From your own idea?

What if you abuse women due to "indirect general karma"?
There is the pattern that abused people tend to turn out into abusers. Are these people in control of their destiny, considering that they do harm because harm has been inflicted on them?


I disagree.
If you life a life of integrity and deal with emotional issues in a healthy productive way, you will not only start the next life without that burden on your shoulders, but you will be improving the world you are reborn into.

How can you live a life of integrity? Just like that, out of your own grandeour?

Placing your identity with God is to have your identity depend on God. This is not the same as replacing it with God.
Fair enough.
I can accept that.

Yes. But fear is not the only motivator for believing in God.
Fear may be a discovery mechanism though, for discovering God's impact on one.
I know it isn't.
This goes back (if I remember correctly) to your first series of posts in which you were responding to my saying that people can have inner strength by their own virtue, without belief in God, and your response to that about how it will fall apart when you get hurt.

Personal experience proves the nature of faith, to each individual.
True faith never fails, this is what marks it.
By that description, how do you know you have faith until after your death?
How do you know you have faith right now, rather than simplt delusion and wishful thinking?

It all depends on whether you investigate things "bottom up" or "top down".
I see the differences as more significant in this context because Wes was saying you need a belief in God to achieve these things.
He wasn't saying you simply need a belief, but specifically a belief in God.

I think we have an experience of life, and this same experience can be conceptualized differently, via different discourses. These discourses may then superifically differ, but are about the same thing, ultimately.
What would that thing be?

I don't understand how you make this connection.
What do you understand by "progress"?
It doesn't matter what is meant by progress.
Again, look at it in context of the discussion.
What was Wes saying? "You need a belief in God to have a sense of community and social unity."
That same thing can be accomplished by any common belief.
Hell, it can be accomplished by War!

Uh. You'd need to be God to adequately be able to state such a thing.
I don't think so.
All I need is to look around me and what types of things draw people together and make them feel like they ahve a common purpose or goal.

Really? Getting a better car, a better job, better friends, better food, more sex -- these things will lead you to progress spiritually, and make you happy?
Those are a few examples of materialistic endeavors.
I listed others.
You can either find happiness and peace withing yourself through positive action, introspective meditation, healthy living, fostering strong self-esteem and other methods of working on yourself and your view of the world.


No, I'm wondering generally. How come some people have poor self-esteem? How come this can happen at all?
Through the many millions of influences on you throughout your lifetime.

I loves such answers. http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/uploads/post-771-1128846272.gif
It is true.

What is that?
As I said, the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual aspects of who we are.

What is the self?
In this context?
Your own self image.

But why would you abuse women? Just like that, out of an evil streak? From your own idea?
Because of who you are based partially on the many millions of influences on you throughout your lifetime.
None of us exist in a vaccuum.

What if you abuse women due to "indirect general karma"?
There is the pattern that abused people tend to turn out into abusers. Are these people in control of their destiny, considering that they do harm because harm has been inflicted on them?
None of us exist in a vaccuum.
Everything you do affect countless others and everything countless other do affects you.
You are not powerless in this transaction, however, and you have just as much influence over the world as anyone else.
Morever, you have direct control over your mental state (though that does not mean you are no influenced by your surroundings).

How can you live a life of integrity? Just like that, out of your own grandeour?
See the above two answers.

Wes,
Yes, they have used God for these things, historically.
I do not deny that.
The fact that it is possible to not use God for such things, implies they do not "need" him or it.
People do/believe/act how they are taught and raised most often.
Children raised as Atheistic Buddhists do not feel the "need" for a God to provide these things to them.
In a predominately Buddhist culture, "the masses" do not need God.
And, in my opinon, are better off for not needing him, and rarther being self-reliant in the personal and collective sense.

Okay.

I'm looking at it as a meme/mental tool. I don't think it's possible to rationally deny the power there, nor the contribution to the advancement of the species. Woulda shoulda coulda doesn't much matter, especially with consideration of the anthropic principle.

I just think it's important, at least for me, to understand the power of the god meme. I think it's play a crucial role in the development of the species and should be examined in that capacity.

I agree regarding a predominately buddhist culture. I may be wrong, but I consider buddism to be a post-god concept. I'd also argue that comparatively, the idea of "gods" is much more powerful than a religio-philosophy like buddism. The power is in the simplicity. Pretty much anyone, already grown with an IQ of 50 or better can understand the idea of a "god" pretty much immediately. It's a simple, beautiful idea in that context. It explains everything in basically no time. It can lead to a "lifetime of discovery" in that context, but "getting in" is only as complicated as the person in question. While one may hold skepticism of it (as I do), grasping the details of what was said "god did it" or "the fire god did it" is anthropomorphic enough that anyone can immediately get what is said. With buddism (or most other eastern religions that I'm aware of) you're likely to get a "wha?" look from anyone who wasn't raised in the culture when you first present them with the idea. Hehe - you may get that from an easterner when speaking of god(s) too, but they'll probably at least understand what you mean.

one_raven,



Personal experience proves the nature of faith, to each individual.
True faith never fails, this is what marks it.

By that description, how do you know you have faith until after your death?
How do you know you have faith right now, rather than simplt delusion and wishful thinking?

There are enough situations, daily, to test our faith. Question is, whether one is willing to do so.


I see the differences as more significant in this context because Wes was saying you need a belief in God to achieve these things.
He wasn't saying you simply need a belief, but specifically a belief in God.

Okay.


I think we have an experience of life, and this same experience can be conceptualized differently, via different discourses. These discourses may then superifically differ, but are about the same thing, ultimately.

What would that thing be?

The experience of life.


It doesn't matter what is meant by progress.

I think it matters very much. Materialistic progress and spiritual progress are two different things, attained differently.


Again, look at it in context of the discussion.
What was Wes saying? "You need a belief in God to have a sense of community and social unity."
That same thing can be accomplished by any common belief.
Hell, it can be accomplished by War!

Do you equate all kinds of progress, are they the same to you?


I don't think so.
All I need is to look around me and what types of things draw people together and make them feel like they ahve a common purpose or goal.

I think this is superficial in that it assumes that people know exactly what drives them, and are able to verbalize themselves precisely.


No, I'm wondering generally. How come some people have poor self-esteem? How come this can happen at all?

Through the many millions of influences on you throughout your lifetime.

And where do those influences come from?
Where did it all begin?
Who or what started it?
Other people may have negative influence on me, so I end up with poor self-esteem. Why do other people exhibit negative influence on me? Because they had negative influence exhibited on them? And so on back to ...?


What is the self?

In this context?
Your own self image.

My own self-image? Let's say I am this very troubled person with a very poor self-image. How could I possibly improve? Either my poor self-image is not my true self, or something else is at play.

What is the self?


None of us exist in a vaccuum.
Everything you do affect countless others and everything countless other do affects you.
You are not powerless in this transaction, however, and you have just as much influence over the world as anyone else.

That's infinite regress.
Where does it all begin?


Morever, you have direct control over your mental state (though that does not mean you are no influenced by your surroundings).

That should read: You CAN have direct control over your mental state.
For example, a child who has never ben exposed to any explicit spiritual discipline, is beaten and raped. Experiences severe trauma and doesn't speak anymore. Does this child have control over his mental state?


* * *


wesmorris,


I agree regarding a predominately buddhist culture. I may be wrong, but I consider buddism to be a post-god concept. I'd also argue that comparatively, the idea of "gods" is much more powerful than a religio-philosophy like buddism.

Indeed, the idea of gods can be played out very patriarchally and capitalistically, in terms of a master-slave relationship, aimed at economical progress -- and thus the apparent powerfulness of the concept of a god.
People tend to be after all driven satisfying material desires.


The power is in the simplicity. Pretty much anyone, already grown with an IQ of 50 or better can understand the idea of a "god" pretty much immediately. It's a simple, beautiful idea in that context. It explains everything in basically no time.

Indeed, but this is often just exploiting people's existential fear.
Also, it neatly puts an overblown sense of self-importance into perspective. Namely, sooner or later one may realize that one's sense of self-importance has a shaky basis, and to compensate for that, a particular understanding of God is implemented; a tense slave-master relationship between the person and God, this relationship being conditioned by one's own selfish desire that one were in control of everything and the disappointment that one can't be in control of everything.


It can lead to a "lifetime of discovery" in that context, but "getting in" is only as complicated as the person in question.

I think it is crucial to point out that the initial motivation (as one understands it) for beliving in God may greatly differ from a later motivation.
One may start out driven by existential fear or simple social conditioning, but this doesn't mean that all people who believe in God believe with the same motivation.

See Fowler's "Stages of faith" for clarificaiton.
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm

lawds all-mighty. i'm with you water. hallelujah. (sorry, the phrase "good god" starts a chain of comedic ramblings in my head - every good comedian has a preacher character)

I can't find anything to argue with you about. Damn. :)

Wes,
I find no argument in that.


Water,
The experience of life.
That is just vague enough to not say anything at all.

I think it matters very much. Materialistic progress and spiritual progress are two different things, attained differently.
...
Do you equate all kinds of progress, are they the same to you?
Progress is defined by the indiviual for the indivdual and by the community for the community.
Yes, I have my own ideas of what progress is, but thet is really inconsequential.

I think this is superficial in that it assumes that people know exactly what drives them, and are able to verbalize themselves precisely.
A mass of people will often BE superficial.
You do not have to know exactly what drives someone esle just as you do not have to know exactly what someone else's ideal of God is, in orsder for it to be a source of commune.

And where do those influences come from?
Where did it all begin?
Who or what started it?
Other people may have negative influence on me, so I end up with poor self-esteem. Why do other people exhibit negative influence on me? Because they had negative influence exhibited on them? And so on back to ...?

My own self-image? Let's say I am this very troubled person with a very poor self-image. How could I possibly improve? Either my poor self-image is not my true self, or something else is at play.

What is the self?

That's infinite regress.
Where does it all begin?

That should read: You CAN have direct control over your mental state.
For example, a child who has never ben exposed to any explicit spiritual discipline, is beaten and raped. Experiences severe trauma and doesn't speak anymore. Does this child have control over his mental state?


What is your point with all this?
How does this say anything about people needing a belief in God?
You could say all the same stuff about a child who has never been introduced to the idea of God or a healthy idea of what God may be.
None of us exist in a vaccuum free of outside influences.
Those outside influences may introduce you a healthy self-esteem and self-image and ways to maintain that in a purely materialistic manner or via faith in God.
How is faith in God better?
How is faith in God necessary?

One Raven,


The experience of life.

That is just vague enough to not say anything at all.

I don't think it is vague at all. It just encompasses a lot.


Progress is defined by the indiviual for the indivdual and by the community for the community.
Yes, I have my own ideas of what progress is, but thet is really inconsequential.

I insist that it is necessary to regard the quality of a progress.
Mental illness and cancer *progress* as well, for example.

In what ways has Western society progressed? Technologically, yes. Spiritually, questionable.


You do not have to know exactly what drives someone esle just as you do not have to know exactly what someone else's ideal of God is, in orsder for it to be a source of commune.

You better know those things, or you are talking about oranges while the people you talk about mean apples.

Knowing the drives and ideals is important if we are to assess what is a source of commune.

Many people believe in God, and also proclaim so. But on careful further inspection, you may find out that they are in it because of peer pressure or social benefit, and that they just use the flag of religion for pursuing interests that don't actually have something directly to do with belief in God. Are we still to claim that they believe in God? Are we to say that their belief in God is the source of commune?

Another extreme, if we are to disregard investigation of motive, is to say that the Crusades happened for religious purposes. There is a perspective vocal that says the Crusades were economically and politically motivated, and that pursuing those goals in the name of God was just a farce.

Just because something is said by some to happen "in God's name" doesn't actually make it be in God's name.


What is your point with all this?

I went with the line of the discussion.


How does this say anything about people needing a belief in God?

God can be a reference point. Without a reference point, a person can become lost and fails in life.


Those outside influences may introduce you a healthy self-esteem and self-image and ways to maintain that in a purely materialistic manner or via faith in God.

Eh, I can't rely on those outside influences to be good to me, can I?


How is faith in God better?
How is faith in God necessary?

For a particular progress, faith in God is necessary.

For a capitalist economical progress of the society as we know it in the West, it seems that a stage 2 or stage 3 faith (according to Fowler) was necessary.

Look at the Buddhists in the original Eastern setting. By the belief in karma and rebirth, they are held back and demotivated for excessive tending to material desires; by being generous and helping all sentient beings, competition is lessened. In such circumstances, economical progress is minute in comparison to the West.

But driven by a tense master-slave mentality, competition between people is fueled.
This master-slave mentality can be in the relation God-humans, but also in relation to other things which we posit as our god, ie. as our highest priority, esp. money and material wealth.

What we can find in the West, for example, is people who believe in God, but the master-slave relationship that they perceive crucial for them is money-themselves -- money being their slave-driver, their master. So can we say that it is the belief in God that is the sourceof their commune?

It seems to me that what happened, in the history of Western mentality, is that the culture became conditioned by the stage 2-3 kind of faith in God, and this conditioning then produced a particular mindset that was very competitive and conducive to economical growth.

I find it hard to imagine another source for such competition.


(To note. Fowler's stages of faith are comparable with Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. It is typical for both scalas that the majority of the population falls into the first three stages, and that many people never progress past stage 3.)

"Perhaps man will rise ever higher as soon as he ceases to flow out into a god." - Fredreich Nietzsche, "The Gay Science".

Water:

We must also consider how the morality and faith scales are utterly rooted in "conventionally held to be superior" notions. For instance, the whole "social justice is greater than personal desire!" of the moral scale, which equates such with a simply infantile conception of things.

Prince,


We must also consider how the morality and faith scales are utterly rooted in "conventionally held to be superior" notions. For instance, the whole "social justice is greater than personal desire!" of the moral scale, which equates such with a simply infantile conception of things.

We have to start out somewhere, even if it is with an infantile conception of things. We can't progress while forever in relativity.


One swallow doesn't bring the summer, but you have to start somewhere.

Water:

We have to start out somewhere, even if it is with an infantile conception of things. We can't progress while forever in relativity.

The problem with this notion is that it doesn't take into consideration that moral considerations do not really transcend the "if it is bad for me, it is bad for everything!" stage. We really are seeking benefit for ourselves, no matter what we specifically adhere to, and even the notion of "social justice" is rooted in selfishness. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau cover this especially well in their various treatises on the matter. I also tackle it a wee bit in my "Selfishness: The Only Possibility" essay/article here.