🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 15, 5:16 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 3:00 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >> hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> First you must realize that atoms are materials, existed in this real
> >>> world, measurable, detectable even when we can't see them.
> >>> Your god is an "imaginary" thing...nothing real and not measurable,
> >>> not detectable, not even believable.
> >> Now that is where you are wrong.
>
> >> Atoms do not exist in the material world: they exist in a conceptual
> >> space in principle no different to his God.
>
> >> Like his god, they are noumenous hypotheses. *Unlike* his God, they are
> >> sufficiently precisely defined to be tested, and have not failed the
> >> tests *so far*.
>
> >> That means that unlike biblical prophecies, the equations that govern
> >> their behaviour - or describe them, if you prefer - CAN be used to
> >> predict the future with an alarmingly high degree of accuracy and in
> >> considerable detail. In specific areas anyway.
>
> >> In the final analysis, God is an *emotional* explanation, atoms are a
> >> scientific and technical one.
>
> >> The purpose of the god explanation is to make people *feel better*. Like
> >> any placebo, it need not be based on anything that is real in a material
> >> or indeed scientific sense.
>
> >>>> Gordon
> > No, Philosopher, atoms are real and bonded to form material.
>
> No, they are constructs. As in fact is 'material' itself.
>
> solidity is according to quanutm physics, an illusion ;-)
>
> > The conceptual existence is the electrons which does not stay in a
> > respective space.
>
> Not at all. Atoms and electrons cane equally be 'detected' by using
> cathode ray tubes, bubble chambers. electron microscopes and the like..
>
> Its important to recognise that the only actual reality is what lies
> behind our perceptions, and our memory of them. Without memory there is
> no time...perceptually..
>
> we sense the world that we assume lies around us, as a data stream of
> various impulses that get *interpreted* into something that becomes the
> world we recognise: none of this is real at the point of perception, its
> all a construct.
>
> The fact that it works pretty well, is perhaps strong evidence that it
> correlates to something that IS real pretty closely, but its not
> overwhelming proof.
>
> Oh, and if you want to know where God lives in all that..look into the
> perceptual process itself. Deus, in this case is definitely IN Machina..;-)
>
> Something exists (in?) us that definitely is a Creator, and does indeed
> bring Order of perception out of the Chaos..of sensation.
>
> You would probably call it something like consciousness.  and indeed it
> DOES have a personal connection ..and is amenable to manipulation by
> ritual, prayer and other typically 'religious' techniques. And indeed it
> can completely transform the way you see the world..in fact that seems
> to be its only function ;-)
>
> Which is why I have much sympathy for religion *as a way to frig with
> the human operating system*. BUT you don't need to 'believe in God' to
> use it that way. Although Faith, as an ACTIVITY, has its uses.
>
> There is not actually 'real' and 'not real' More, there is a hierarchy
> extending from the most numinous concepts down to the reality of our
> sensations,which is about as close to fact as we can ever get. Normal
> perception of the world is at least two steps removed from *sensation*
> of it though.
>
> Only those whose normal perceptions have not been developed or
> socialised - typically 'small children' or those whose perceptions are
> severely disrupted by trauma, (mental) illness, or deliberate
> steps..drugs, fasting, deep meditation and the like..are in a position
> to actually go a step closer..and 'enter the kingdom of heaven' etc blah
> blah.
>
> A process, the return from which is akin to being reborn...
>
> So when I read 'except as ye become as little children, ye shall not
> enter the kingdom of heaven' it makes perfect sense to me. Likewise the
> myth of death and rebirth. Its the stock in trade of all shamanic
> traditions..the descent to the underworld where some powerful spirit
> re-makes the body of the shaman etc.
>
> Also eternity: if you knock out the perceptual processes that are to do
> with memory, you will exist in a timeless instant present. If you knock
> out most of the interpretive process, you will end up in a state of
> blissful innocence.
>
> I have always had a sneaking suspicion that the story of rip Van Winkle
> is an allegorical reference..
>
> If you remove the social aspects of religion, what is left is remarkably
> similar in all traditions: A set of ways to change consciousness, and
> some lessons derived from so doing. And usually some fairly strange
> powers associated with those who *can* do so.
>
> Yu can even chart the rise of the god concept - originally nature
> spirits, that are actually analogues of what we would call 'natural
> laws' ..then gods of emotional and mental states - the greek pantheon
> being more or less that..and finally monotheism,which at least makes the
> point that all of these are aspects of one thing. You would call it
> 'consciousness': I call it something different, but that's because of my
> personal history.
>
> > So are the sub-atomic particles.

A very good philosophical perspective.
However, I must beg to differ in some of your points.
I also would share the point regarding human suffering, which tends to
lead to religious inclination. The pain and mental suffering is not
easy to manage; human ability to tackle is limited in a lot of cases.
However, this is exactly the biological process of the wear and tear,
or imbalance if you like, that the body and mind is subject to. But in
reality, the body has its own defence, much like the healing of a cut.
I can understand your deeper thoughts in regards to religion and you
have found similarities.
But, in most cases as we have seen, the people are not equating
religion as to a life process, much as you do. In fact, the religious
preaching never go down that road and merely points to an entity that
is supposed to be of use only in the after-life.
There is actually no concrete choice for human when we are alive in
this world, let alone in the after life scenario. Since life is short,
this is the most interested arena when we do not wish to be not in
control.
This is also why a lot of people wish to be happy in life.