God and personal liberty and power

[Athena]

Quoting INow

 

Cicero equated god to natural law, and natural law to that which helps the survival of the state and enhances personal happiness. However, his view was still extremely limited and biased since he failed to account for the fact that everyone has their own version of ethics... For his approach to apply, you must assume that the approach is shared by all beings. For his ideas to apply, one must assume that all men shared a common conception of good... an assumption that is ridiculous on its face. He made the sophomoric mistake of trying to equate his personal subjective understandings, values, and ethics with some sort of objective universal truth. They were lofty ideals, and many incredibly well-thought proposals, but they are not in any way, shape, or form objective universal truths. You seem to be suffering from the same problem.

 

If I may be so bold... There is no one right way or no one single truth, and likewise there is no one single ultimate authority. Try as you might, you will perpetually come up short if you continue to seek one. The power is within you... within all of us... and when that power is aggregated it becomes the basis of true democracy... Not some ethereal subjective set of natural laws or deistic god.

 

Thank you. I am also equating God with natural law, and does it matter if Cicero's understanding was not 100% correct? How does that change the Greek philosophical understanding of God? You know, a concept of God understood by more than one person, however, also a concept God that is not defined as religions do, and has nothing at all to do with superstition but is directly opposed to superstition.

 

Think of the gods. They were not of one mind, and neither are humans. Of course our own version of ethics differs, just as the gods' did, and how did the gods resolve their differences? They argued until there was agreement on the best reasoning. That is what democracy is about. It is an imitation of the gods. When we understand the gods abstractly, we know they are concepts and different points of view, with different ways of handling problems. The way the Athenians related to them, cause human intelligence to explode! This is what democracy is suppose to do.

 

I think you have erred when saying "one must assume that all men shared a common conception of good..". This is a question of logic, and as the gods we are to argue until we have agreement on the best reasoning. And tomorrow, when someone walks in with new information, we argue it again. This is what democracy is about. We are constantly questioning what we think we know and constantly seeking truth, when we understand our democracy, which unfortunately we do not. Seeking truth and attempting to learn of God are one and the same thing, when God is understood to be the laws of nature.

 

As you said, that all babies are born with blank brains, is not exactly true, but it is the Germany philosophy of education that was adopted by the US in 1958. Liberal education, and the originally philosophy behind US education is we are all as different as the gods, and my grandmother's generation of teachers, taught respect of those differences, and attempted to help each child recognize his/her individual talents and interest.

 

Public education is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish, and the students are the genii. Athens education for well rounded individual growth, was the original model of education in the US. We changed that wish with the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and replaced liberal education with education for technology and this is devastating to our democracy. We have been on the path Germany followed since 1958. Now people's minds are so closed, it seems impossible to have the discussions that are vital to democracy and liberty.

[Essay]

Being conscious means that your conscious thoughts have control over your sense organs and on your actions and Gods have complete control over your conscious thoughts and in this way God enforces his authority on man. Gods are not some super beings who exist above our sky with out interefering with human affairs, gods are beings which exist in our bodies(spiritual body) and guide our intellect and our conscious thoughts and it is through this insight we should understand the Greek plays on how Gods play with human beings.

I'm glad you explained that you are not speaking of an anthropomorphized source of extraordinary altruism. It seems there may even be room for a "natural" source, contingent upon how natural is defined, I suppose....

 

===

 

 

 

 

MTM:

There is a pattern you speak of, which served evolution well as we filled our niche. I wonder if you think that pattern will continue to serve us similarly, now that our niche is filled and resource shifts are changing the baseline biodiversity of our niche.

===

 

To immortal:

I'm not sure about --or if it matters now-- how evolution has shaped us psychologically; but however we got here, I don't see why "evolutionary psychology" can't motivate all the humane qualities of "godliness" that you so nicely listed above.

 

With just a little education....

 

From a scientific perspective, looking at the long evolutionary path to get here --and all the biochemical luck and skill and struggle and strain, and the endurance and dreams of our ancestors-- motivates me to make a connection of some sort which validates that long effort. The grandeur of the 3 Big Bangs (Existence, Life, Self-Awareness) and how those now bring us to this peak of knowledge and humanity --which allows us to see from the beginning to the end of time, as well as the infinitely small and large-- is enough to motivate me to be more humane... so that future generations may also enjoy this heaven on earth --our domain-- His biogeochemosphere.

 

...or however you might define the biogeochemosphere.

 

===

 

I wrote the above notes several nights ago (re: thru post #87), and having read through the subsequent postings it still seemed valid. I'd like to add....

 

With religions (trying to maintain cohesiveness/continuity), sometimes weird rules arise, which conflict with "common-sense" humane relationships or natural laws. Similarly, governments (trying to maintain cohesiveness/continuity) also develop unique laws to address special circumstances, and so weird rules evolve--which can easily conflict with "common-sense" humane relationships or natural laws.

Life is a balancing act; and maybe it is time to act. It's has only been a few hundred years since governments began replacing the cohesiveness and continuity functions of religions; maybe there is still room for improvement and action to seek better balance.

===

 

immortal... Aren't you just defining a sort of "super" alturism, which logically would emerge as a result of belonging to some "super-organism" such as a society? Look at the longer term (or psychologically contrived) ideological motivations to explain such seeming disconnects with reciprocity. ...or words to that effect....

===

 

 

BOT, re: iNow & related comments on Cicero....

 

I'd suggest that many of history's problems were the result of an incomplete understanding of those "natural laws." Social systems organized around an incomplete understanding of the "natural laws" had better learn to adapt adeptly, or expect to eventually confront a crisis.

===

 

As Arete mentioned (iirc): What does it matter from whence the source of humane, "Real," altruistic or good (natural laws) behviour emerges?

...&

 

Athena, I liked your comment about how--regarding the "natural laws" of Cicero--we could modify our understanding and application when "new information comes along." Just in the past decade, new information --on the level of a paradigm shift regarding life cycle functioning and our critical place in that cycle-- has been discovered and is becoming available.

 

This seems like the sort of opportunity to re-examine how "good" is derived from and defined by those natural laws, since this new information relates to many socio-economic and resource problems/goals currently on humanity's "good/bad" radar.

 

Athena's nicely quotable, "...it does not become a moral, until we define it." ...got me thinking about that old phrase, "for the good of society."

As

... "It would be our ability to define a moral, that is also our ability to change the standard, no?" ~Athena

 

Occupy Humanity; redefine good!

 

~

[Vent]

This idea of God as a higher power from natural law is the idea of an objective standard it seems, or did i miss something or someone say that already?

[Athena]

This idea of God as a higher power from natural law is the idea of an objective standard it seems, or did i miss something or someone say that already?

 

Wow, I think I can work with what you said. And in a private message, Moontanman said he thinks my idea of God is our humanity. Now if we don't get too tight with these ideas, yes! Obviously the Greek gods were made by humans. Each one is a archetype of human personalities, so they must be the result of observing humans and then writing stories about them. BUT THE GEM OF GREEK THINKING LEAD US TO SCIENCE! They gave the gods conflicts and made them argue with each other, expanding human consciousness as one god just can not do. The modern equivalent might be our division of sciences?

 

Please note, the Greek philosophers asked how the gods resolve their differences, and concluded, reason, is the controlling force of the universe and even the gods are subject to reason. Someone posted about the acidification of the oceans, and the possibility of killing life in the oceans, and it is what we are doing that is causing this problem! Zeus's biggest fear is that with the technology of fire, we would discover all other technologies and rival the gods. The problem here is our lack of wisdom, and we need a concept of God for liberty and wisdom. Or as Vent so brightly said, an objective standard.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Athena

[immortal]

Now people's minds are so closed, it seems impossible to have the discussions that are vital to democracy and liberty.

 

This is due to Scientism and Positivists philosophical views sweeping through all domains of human knowledge and sociology is not an exemption from that. This means that there is no scope for abstract discussions on metaphysical concepts like God, if you want them to take your argument seriously then you need to provide evidence to support your argument otherwise your argument doesn't in any way add any new knowledge from what we know already. I have quoted only this part here and started a new thread in the philosophy section as you requested to have a political debate about our educational reforms and what should be taught and what we shouldn't to our younger generations, so that I don't hijack your thread.

 

 

However, positivism (understood as the use of scientific methods for studying society) remains the dominant approach to both research and theory construction in contemporary sociology, especially in the United States.

 

The majority of articles published in leading American sociology and political science journals today are positivist (at least to the extent of being quantitative rather than qualitative).[28][29] This popularity may be because research utilizing positivist quantitative methodologies holds a greater prestige in the social sciences than qualitative work.[30] Such research is generally perceived as being more scientific and more trustworthy, and thus has a greater impact on policy and public opinion (though such judgments are frequently contested by scholars doing non-positivist work).

[Athena]

quoting Essay

From a scientific perspective, looking at the long evolutionary path to get here --and all the biochemical luck and skill and struggle and strain, and the endurance and dreams of our ancestors-- motivates me to make a connection of some sort which validates that long effort. The grandeur of the 3 Big Bangs (Existence, Life, Self-Awareness) and how those now bring us to this peak of knowledge and humanity --which allows us to see from the beginning to the end of time, as well as the infinitely small and large-- is enough to motivate me to be more humane... so that future generations may also enjoy this heaven on earth --our domain-- His biogeochemosphere.

 

...or however you might define the biogeochemosphere.

 

===

 

I wrote the above notes several nights ago (re: thru post #87), and having read through the subsequent postings it still seemed valid. I'd like to add....

 

With religions (trying to maintain cohesiveness/continuity), sometimes weird rules arise, which conflict with "common-sense" humane relationships or natural laws. Similarly, governments (trying to maintain cohesiveness/continuity) also develop unique laws to address special circumstances, and so weird rules evolve--which can easily conflict with "common-sense" humane relationships or natural laws.

Life is a balancing act; and maybe it is time to act. It's has only been a few hundred years since governments began replacing the cohesiveness and continuity functions of religions; maybe there is still room for improvement and action to seek better balance.

 

Essay you said so much and we ought to work on the patterns we see today. Identifying them and projecting where they get us. For sure thinking technology can resolve every problem, while maintaining denial of the problems we are creating, and the possibility of destroying our plant, is not wise! We seriously need to get away from a supernatural God who takes care of us, as soon as possible!

 

I love how you compared religious attempts to resolve human problems with governmental efforts. But as we can see, there are some major problems with governmental attempts without a God standard, and tied to who wants what, and has the bucks to get the senator's ear. The dollar as the standard is not a good standard.

 

However, resolving our shared problems is what democracy is about, and it is so much better to put up rules for keeping our water clean and safe, than to hold it is supernatural powers killing the people in town and burning witches. Democracy can do more for humanity than religions could, because its decisions are supposed to be based on the Greek concept of a God of nature/the cause and effect reason, the controlling force of the universe. But science alone is not enough. Being smart but unwise is not a good thing. And, is this not why we fear what some countries will do with atom bombs? We have decided Israel is wise enough to have an atom bomb, and Iran is not. Now from an unprejudiced God's point of view, what does this look like?

 

The New Age occurs after developing the technology for instant mass communication around the world. We are in the resurrection now with geology and archeology uncovering the past, and with the Internet spreading all this information. We can access more information than ever before. Human consciousness is about to explode again. Are we ready for this? What makes the New Age separate from the past is the huge change in consciousness and the inability of those with future consciousness to relate to our primitive and relatively ignorant past consciousness. Like how in the world did people believe the stories in holy books as facts about reality when obviously things could not happen that way?

 

Have you thought how life might have gone if the bible were a math and science book?

[immortal]

Socrates, at his trial in Athens, stated a basic philosophical premise, that "the unexamined life was not worth living."

 

Michel de Montaigne declared that "to philosophize is to learn to die,"

 

Now for the most part, non-theists live by a secular conventional Human principles which society has set up for us through the process of cultural evolution but is this the only principle to live by, what if an higher principle exists which is more worthwhile than the conventional Human principles.

 

If we go by Socrates then we really need to examine whether humans are divine or not.

 

Does divinity exists in human beings?

 

If it does then why should we live by conventional human principles rather than living by a divine principle which transcends and is beyond everything. The ultimate higher principle from which all our actions should be based on.

 

For example:- Marcus Aurelius believed in providence and he believed in Gods and in the divinity of human beings and he could have easily led a life based on conventional human principles enjoying the the pleasures of the palace rather than living a simple stoic life even though being in a palace.

 

In terms of Marcus it makes perfect sense he was preparing himself to face death and to take his new journey since he believed in a divine soul, providence and in gods.

 

The question is how do we know what is worthwhile and what is not, which principles are a waste of time and which aren't, which principle is more important and worthwhile than the other?

 

i.e if theists don't lead their lives based on a divine principle examining the divinity of humans then how do we know whether such higher principles exists or not in the first place.

 

There might be principles which are more good to the individuals and to the society as a whole reforming the political arena than the current existing reforms.

 

Therefore I strongly criticize the movement of New Atheists who suppress and show intolerance to speculative metaphysics, instead what we should be intolerant is towards religious superstition and its superstitious practices rather than suppressing new ways of thinking and practices which has deep rationality behind it leaving the choices to individuals and their personal liberties.