RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 12:07:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It may be of interest to some that the first verse of John's Gospel is:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1 (NIV)


Substitute Word with Idea, or even with NTRW, and it becomes more interesting.

Then try some other substitutions, for hours of entertainment.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


It does - and the notion that this is written as a fundamental part of what is claimed to be a great religion, carries some water to the reasoning that the use of language is indeed fundamental for the concept of "God".

I see this as just one more of the religious self-inconsistencies; when we use what is claimed to be "the truth" and apply some logic to it, we end up with an absurd conclusion, in this case a conclusion that tells us that "God" is nothing but a human concept, created by our ability to use abstract thoughts and express those through language.




GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 12:14:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
I do not see a problem. Both are important but religion is more important, and it gets more attention.


*Face Palm*




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 12:36:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia

It would help if you would address THE ISSUE instead of constantly attacking the person who brings up something you don't like.

The issue, in this case, is interpreting the text literally, a practice employed only by fundamentalist wackos and a certain brand of atheist. In my opinion, I addressed it not only directly but also with all the respect that it merits (which is none).

K.






Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 12:43:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia

the notion that this is written as a fundamental part of what is claimed to be a great religion, carries some water to the reasoning that the use of language is indeed fundamental for the concept of "God".

Actually, quite the opposite; it reflects the impossibility language faces when attempting to encompass the concept of deity.

K.




Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 1:10:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia

I see this as just one more of the religious self-inconsistencies


It has been said by better men than me that the more abstract the topic becomes, the more we see ourselves reflected in it, that what we see in something abstract may speak more to what is in ourselves than to what is in others, and that in speaking of same, we show more of ourselves than of that about which we are attempting to speak. I invite you to consider what of yourself might here be reflected in your words.

IWYW,
— Aswad.




GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 1:11:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I am awaiting explication of the method(s) you propose to use beyond Faith.


Wild assertions backed up by heckling.




GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 1:17:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia
It would help if you would address THE ISSUE instead of constantly attacking the person who brings up something you don't like.


Good luck with that, I waited in vain for years before finally hitting the hide button.




GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 1:22:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

these movements towards wanting to restrict the teaching of Darwinian evolution and encouraging the teaching of intelligent design are fairly recent (I want to say within the last 10 years or so).

I can't resist noting that the Scopes trial took place in 1925. [:)]

Intelligent Design is a relatively recent thing - it surfaces around 1989, so I'm quite sure the Scopes trial had nothing to do with Intelligent Design as the term is used and understood in education.


Intelligent Design is just a rebranding of creationism which is significantly older than a decade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Abrahamic creation narrative.[2] At this time those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called "advocates of creation" but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist disbelief in human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups, such as old earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who believed in various concepts of creation.




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 2:59:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I do recall one time you posted a video in which the lecturer used quantum theory as a basis to claim the existence of a universal, loving energy that is god in all of us. Oh, how the audience applauded.

And, of course, you snarked then as you do now. Here's a link to that video for those who haven't a clue what you're talking about:

The Primacy of Consciousness

K.





mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 3:03:09 PM)

Your link is fucked up K.   The link is to Deja Vu all over again, not to a video.

Yogi Berra




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 3:11:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Intelligent Design is just a rebranding of creationism which is significantly older than a decade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Abrahamic creation narrative.[2] At this time those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called "advocates of creation" but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist disbelief in human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups, such as old earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who believed in various concepts of creation.



ID is def stemming from creationism, but, personally, I would not characterize it as simply a "rebranding" of creationism. It is an attempt to make creationist principles seem more scientific, and as such, I find it much more insidious and dangerous than creationism in and of itself. The ID proponents are trying to confuse scientific inquiry by trying to treat ID as science when it is not. And this reframing of the debate is very harmful to the proper study of science.

I see why you feel it is just a "rebranding". I just feel it is something significantly more than that, and far more dangerous.




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 3:13:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Good luck with that, I waited in vain for years before finally hitting the hide button.

Some people are just so enamored of their own inerrancy that they feel personally insulted when someone dares to inform them that they don't know what they're talking about. Must be tough. You have my sympathy.

K.







Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 3:16:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Your link is fucked up K.

Fixed it. Thanks.

K.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 4:19:37 PM)

Ok.
To try and explain that a concept of a deity CAN exist without language AND be conveyed to another without a single word being written or uttered -
If I wrote this all out in full, it would be a humungous essay so I'm just going to glance over the essentials.

In The Beginning
A single man, finding himself in the middle of huge dirt patch, sparsely populated with a few trees, some scrubland and a wide river nearby. Trudges off to where he knows some other humans are, WHACK! Claims a wife, caveman style, and drags her to his patch of earth.
Now, there are several trees that give fruit. Our troggie has learnt that he can use the main tree for many things.
The fruit feeds him; the bark can be stripped and wide pieces woven into mats, a skin for a coracle-type boat, hammocks. The sap can act as glue and a waterproof covering. Very thin strips can be twisted into a twine for tying, making crude fishing nets and traps. The bigger boughs can be formed into load-bearing structures like a roof support, crude furniture for comfort, a plough for planting other crops. The smaller branches form a roof for shelter, basics for a fire with which to keep warm, cook his food and use the smoke to keep biting insects away. Other branches fashion tools for him - a bow, arrows, spears etc.
He knows he cannot rely entirely on this main tree because the others aren't mature enough to bear fruit or support him yet, so he must look after it, nurture it, keep it alive - it is important to him, he needs it to survive. He reveres this tree - it is his whole life. He plants seeds from his tree to grow for the future as well as other things to grow for food.

Logic: This tree is basically the very essence of his survival. It is worthy of worship.

Stage 2
After some time, kids are born and they grow. With his wife they help with growing crops, fishing and hunting. He teaches them, by embracing the tree and pointing to things he has made with it, that this is a very important thing and that they too must cherish it beyond anything else.
He learns that his crops, tree shoots and small saplings he is trying to grow for their future do not grow if they are covered. They need the Sun to grow. He ponders... He has noticed that his home grows smaller when he runs away from it but returns to normal when he gets back - he understands distance and perspective even if he can't measure it.
He looks at the Sun, then back to his little fire. This round thing in the sky must be a very long way away because it still looks the same size if he runs all day. He also notices it is not connected to his piece of cultured wilderness that he has shaped, his little piece of 'earth'. This thing must be awfully hot too, because it burns him as if he stood too close to his fire, yet he cannot reach it. His crops and his beloved and revered tree need this round heat otherwise they die. And if they die, he and his family die too.

Logic: This 'thing' in the sky (the Sun) must be more important than his tree because he and his tree need it to survive. It is also a separate entity to the 'earth' he and his family are living on. It is worthy of worship like his tree but even more so because even his tree needs it.

Stage 3
By now there are more kids. Sons and daughters have grabbed mates and there are grandkids - the tribe is growing.
He gathers his tribe together. They all know the tree is very important to them. He points to the Sun and with outstretched arms and wiggling his fingers, he scribes a line from the Sun to the main tree. He forms a 'V' shape with his flat hands and points to the base of the tree with his straight fingers, and then raises his hands moving them apart as he points towards the top. He points to the fruit that is ripening on the boughs. He repeats the same thing with a smaller tree that has now grown and is bearing its first fruits. He does the same with his growing crops. He again points to the Sun and uses an embracing gesture with his arms. They all understand now that although the tree is very important, it cannot survive without this 'Sun' and thus the Sun must be revered more than the tree. He also observes through the length of shadows cast by objects, that when the sun is not seen it must be underneath him and he cannot see it - he is in his own earth's shadow and that is why it is dark.

Logic: He now understands that his earth and the Sun must be going round each other to cast such shadows but cannot comprehend how or why it should be. He has now shifted his severe reverence to the sun - something he cannot touch but he can see and can appreciate its importance to his world. He has learned that not all things are earthly and some things he cannot control. He has also perceived that something beyond his control, too far for him to reach, can severely influence the things that he relies upon to survive. It is worthy of worship as it is obviously further up the hierarchy than his tree of life.

Stage 4
He watches the Sun as it rises at one side of the sky. He watches it all day until it sets at the opposite end of the sky.
He ponders again... His round pebble does not rush up a slope unless he rolls it up himself. His pebble, when rolled down a slope gathers speed - the Sun does not do this. It rises and climbs up the sky in a steady and slow manner and descends into the opposite end in an equally slow and controlled manner - yet it has no arms nor legs or anything to aid its steady motion in the sky.
PING!! An abstract thought enters his head... If HE has to help his pebble maintain control when not on level ground, then something, something he cannot see, must be helping the Sun control its movements. He knows that the Sun is very far away from him so this something must also be very very far from him otherwise he would see it. He does not understand the concept of gravity or orbits so he assumes that this extremely powerful something, being, must be pushing the sun around him because he doesn't feel the ground is moving like when he is in his coracle on the water.
This being must be all-powerful to move something like the sun as he and his tribe cannot even get close enough to touch it, let alone move it! It must also be hiding in the sky somewhere behind the Sun because he doesn't see anything reaching out from his earth to control the Sun.
He understands distance and perspective and for something to be so powerful as to move the Sun, he must be very big, have super-strength and also lay much further away from the Sun than he is.

Logic: He has now invented the concept of an invisible 'Deity' that is even more powerful than the Sun. Whoever this invisible person is, must fill the whole sky behind the sun because they cannot see him.

Stage 5
His logic has shown there is something much more powerful (and therefore much more important) than the sun that they hold in such high reverence. He must try to explain what this is to his tribe so they understand what is happening.
He gathers his tribe as before and grabs a pointy stick. He draws 3 pictograms in the smooth dirt.
Pic#1: First, he draws a flat line with the pointy stick. Then he draws a stick figure on the line and points to himself. He draws some slightly smaller stick figures near his own and points to the gathered people. He draws a big tree on the line and goes over and hugs the tree with a beaming smile on his face. He goes through the motions of pointing to the tree and what they have done with it, finishing off with a large embracing gesture. They all nod in agreement.
Pic#2: He draws a circle slightly away from the first pic. He points to the Sun in the sky and draws little squirly lines inside the circle and mimics the wiping of sweat from his brow. He repeats the outstretched arms and wiggly fingers in a line to the tree; he draws wavy lines radiating from the circle. He ends by using his finger in a wide circular motion to indicate them all, then the Sun in the sky, finishing off with a large embracing gesture and a beaming smile. They all nod in agreement.
Pic#3: He points to the Sun in the sky and scribes an arc in the air with his outstretched finger to depict the path of the Sun as they see it. Then he uses a pushing motion and again points to the Sun in the sky to show that he thinks someone is pushing the sun across the sky. They look a bit puzzled.
He draws a figure of a man-shaped being - not a stick figure, but more of an outline shape - way beyond the circle of the Sun. He re-gestures the path of the Sun but this time continues the path to a full circle to show that he believes the Sun goes underneath them. He uses the pointy stick and points to the man-shaped being, gestures a pushing motion by thrusting his forward-facing open palms in front of him, then draws a faint line between the being and the Sun, then even further in an arc over the flat line with the stick figures and the tree. They seem to understand what he is conveying - that there is a very powerful man pushing the sun across the sky. They all nod.
Now, prodding the drawing of the being with the pointy stick and making a huge embracing gesture and an even bigger beaming smile across his face, he then scribes a big circle with his finger to show he means everyone and prods the being with the pointy stick and gestures another embrace. They all nod in agreement.

Logic: He has embraced the abstract idea of an invisible 'god' and conveyed to his tribe that idea and that they should revere this being because he is even higher in the order of hierarchy than the Sun, or his tree, or indeed even himself.

Finale
After some time, our troggie has noticed there is too much reverence and the crops are not so good through slacking, nor is the hunting so bountiful. He ponders again... He meditates in deep thought and thinks of the being he thinks is still up there, slowly pushing the Sun across the sky. Surely if he is pushing the Sun for their benefit, he must have noticed that things aren't quite what they were before.
PING!! Another abstract idea!
He gathers his tribe again. He holds his hands up, fists closed, and releases one finger at a time, slowly.... 1--2--3--4--5--6 and stops. He makes the all-encompassing circular motion for 'everyone', points to the tree, the fields of crops, the bow and spear and spoils of the hunt, and gestures eating then sleeping. He repeats the gestures for each of the fingers in turn. They understand that for 6 passings of the Sun, they will tend the crops, hunt, eat and sleep.
He pauses... Then holds up 7 fingers all at once and thrusts them forwards at them in an urgent and agitated manner. He waggles his forefinger at the crops, the tree, the spoils of the hunt and when he starts to gesture eating, he stops and shakes his head in a negative manner and waggles his forefinger in front of his lips... They will do none of this on the seventh day of the Sun passing overhead. They look puzzled again. He sees the reaction and prods the drawing of the being he made earlier in earnest with a severe and stern look on his face. He slowly stretches out his arms and reverently bows down on his knees to the drawing of the being and clasps his hands together in a praying manner. He uses the circular gesture to include everyone and proceeds to prod the being with the pointy stick and repeats the earlier stern gestures with bowing and praying.
After a long pause, he repeats the whole thing several times until they fully understand what he is conveying.

Logic: He has now made a new 'law' that all shall work and hunt for 6 passings of the Sun and on the 7th day they shall all show extreme reverence for the being that is controlling the Sun, given the tree life, and provided them ALL with a prosperous and bountiful existence!
There now exists a fully-fledged belief system, complete with an invisible deity, that is to be worshipped every 7th day when the other 6 days of earthly activities are to cease.

Voila!!


I have used the English language to describe the complete scenario - but it could have been any language.
You may also note that all the communication of our troggie and tribe, right off the bat, has been no more than improvised gestures.

Although this is only a hypothesis, it does strongly demonstrate that a fully-fledged belief system, complete with deity and worship laws, can evolve from nothing and that belief can be adequately conveyed to others who are devoid of ANY formal language, both written and spoken.
All achieved through gestures and a few primitive drawings done with a pointy stick in the dirt.

Case closed.


And all this from someone that does NOT have a belief in ‘god’ or ‘satan’.




tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 6:57:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia

It would help if you would address THE ISSUE instead of constantly attacking the person who brings up something you don't like.

The issue, in this case, is interpreting the text literally, a practice employed only by fundamentalist wackos and a certain brand of atheist. In my opinion, I addressed it not only directly but also with all the respect that it merits (which is none).

K.




So it's a matter of interpretation now is it? I remind you that the relevant post in full was:

"It may be of interest to some that the first verse of John's Gospel is:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1
(NIV)
""
"
There is sweet fuck all interpretation happening there. There is a bland introduction to a quote, the quote itself and that's all. Zero interpretation.

Once again you are personalising matters in a pejorative way. As you have done for as long as I have been posting here.

It's such a shame really. There's a lot of merit in many of Buddhist precepts you promote here- things like humility, egolessness, sharing, kindness and gentleness. Qualities that are notably absent from your posts, which feature snark, ego, arrogance and bad temper. People would take them (and you) a lot more seriously if you didn't so consistently and flagrantly violate the basic principles you advocate.




tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 7:24:42 PM)

Sorry freedomdwarf, you appear to have put so much thought and effort into your hypothesis that I almost feel guilty picking holes in it.

However, it's quite a jump from protecting and nurturing a valuable source of materials - the tree - to "worshiping" it. And in the sections marked 'Logic' classifications systems are continually employed (eg at Stage 2, you specifically mention "a separate entity"). How did your tribesman acquire the ability to classify without a language? The evidence of aphasiacs which I mentioned previously, is that they are unable to classify because they have no access to the tool with which we classify - language.

There are many more similar flaws in your hypothesis. So I am sorry but IMHO the hypothesis fails.




tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 7:55:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
.

quote:

tweakabelle
If you are suggesting that there exist pre-linguistic "concrete concepts of a deity and the underlying posited realities that the concepts relate to"(my emphasis) then it ought to be straightforward to present examples of such. I look forward to seeing them.


Let's take the scenic route.

Have a look at Obama; he's the 44th incarnation of Potus, the pharaoh of the largest kingdom of the North American continent. Potus is a demigod, of course, being a role and thus poised between the realm of ideas and the physical, just like his son, the bull Dollar, whom he always rides to ever greater heights.

Now, have a look at your mother. Then the idea itself. An idea that is understood preverbally, by several species.

An idea that is one of many different recurring concepts of divinity.

Did you perhaps have a specific divinity in mind?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Isn't that - "Did you perhaps have a specific divinity in mind"? - the question I asked of you initially? A question that remains open from where I sit .....

.....as, sorry, both Obama and my mother, who are both 100% human, do not qualify as deities in the usual sense of the word. Well I can assure you my mother is human, I haven't met Obama so I can't absolutely guarantee he is human, but all the evidence I have seen to date is supportive.

If you alluding to emotions/relationships such as love and adulation, I don't see that the mere presence of such projects any human in to the realm of the gods - but I could be wrong. [:D]




Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 9:16:37 PM)

Would you care to define "worship", tweakabelle?

As for the aphasia studies, if you happen to have any citations on hand, I would love to read them, as your arguments aren't supported by what I've read about the neural correlates of language and symbolic thought so far, which is why I think you've misread them and would like to make up my own mind. Incidentally, it would also be of general interest to me, as I do like knowing as much as possible about how our brains work.

And, just to be clear, when you say "aphasics" (I'm assuming we're talking about a specific subpopulation) can't classify, that means you can put several different items on a table in front of them and they will be unable to group them in any way that makes sense to anyone else, right? No recognizeable pattern or logic to the grouping?

IWYW,
— Aswad.




Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/16/2012 9:31:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Isn't that - "Did you perhaps have a specific divinity in mind"? - the question I asked of you initially? A question that remains open from where I sit .....


I expressed myself poorly. By «do not qualify as deities in the usual sense of the word», you touch on my meaning, which is that I think you have a specific sense of deity or divinity in mind. Your response to me seems to support that interpretation. But several senses of deities and divinities do deal with concrete concepts, of which I provided a family of examples.

quote:

.....as, sorry, both Obama and my mother, who are both 100% human, do not qualify as deities in the usual sense of the word.


Obama is a man. POTUS is not. Potus is half man, half divinity (i.e. not a man).

I assume you've studied Egyptian religion?

quote:

If you alluding to emotions/relationships such as love and adulation, I don't see that the mere presence of such projects any human in to the realm of the gods - but I could be wrong. [:D]


Not into the realm of Greek gods, certainly, and not into the realm of Abrahamic gods, either.

That aside, perhaps this picture will be helpful; care to guess who she's worshipping?

(Bear with me. I'm trying to explain something, not argue it, at the moment.)

[image]local://upfiles/413868/D55F888545C047A2A8A9D1F483779FB5.jpg[/image]

IWYW,
— Aswad.




tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 12:18:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

This is another way of saying what I have been claiming all along - that humans approached the point where we could develop highly abstract concepts (such as a deity) in an incremental fashion, that certain enabling criteria were developed over time that allowed, eventually, the conceptualisation of a deity.
quote:

Aswad
Thank you for clarifying, as I originally read you as saying humanity "invented" deities, rather than grasping them.


What I said originally is that it is agreed that humans invented language, and that it follows from that we invented 'deities'.

I think we can agree that those deities that have been rendered in discourse are human inventions. The point of divergence is whether the concept of deity exists beyond the realm of language, which I understand you to be affirming.

Here I note the distinction between an instinct and a concept. I haven't heard a claim that we instinctively deify - my posts have all referred to the conceptualisation of a deity ie. an abstract mental process. Without getting into a mind/body split argument, my feeling is that the neat dictionary separation is too simplistic and so have some sympathy for your claims that the point of demarcation is not as clear cut as they suggest.

However this discussion has been clearly about a concept as a product of a language-enabled mind from the beginning. A concept is a human abstraction that only exists at its point of origin inside someone's head. The only way it can exist outside of a human head is through its symbolic representation (most commonly in language). Previously you suggested that the concept of a deity exists independently of minds which 'discover' it via some as yet unspecified process. You claimed there were "concrete" examples of this. I believe this is your 'concrete' example to support this claim:
.
quote:

Obama is a man. POTUS is not. Potus is half man, half divinity (i.e. not a man).



POTUS is not even a person - it is an office inhabited by a person who is thereby invested with extra-ordinary powers. Those powers are granted by other humans and limited by other humans -through the Constitution, law and precedent. Removal from POTUS is possible by following the legally prescribed method - impeachment. The idea of impeaching a deity sounds rather implausible, wouldn't you agree? There is nothing extra-human or supernatural involved at any point, only extra-ordinary. So, POTUS is not a divine status within the normal English usage of the term as I understand it

quote:

By «do not qualify as deities in the usual sense of the word», you touch on my meaning, which is that I think you have a specific sense of deity or divinity in mind. Your response to me seems to support that interpretation. But several senses of deities and divinities do deal with concrete concepts, of which I provided a family of examples


Definition of deity
noun (plural deities)


a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion):a deity of ancient Greece
divine status, quality, or nature:a ruler driven by delusions of deity
(usually the Deity) the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).
a representation of a god or goddess, such as a statue or carving
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/deity?region=us&q=deity

Definition of divine
adjective (diviner, divinest)


1of, from, or like God or a god:heroes with divine powerspaintings of shipwrecks being prevented by divine intervention
devoted to God; sacred:divine liturgy
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/divine?region=us&q=divine

Definition of God
noun


1 [without article] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 (god) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon godan incarnation of the god Vishnu
an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

3 (god) an adored, admired, or influential person:he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god
a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god:don’t make money your god

4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theater.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/God?region=us&q=God

I’m using the term ‘deity’ well within its normal everyday English usage, which as can be seen from the dictionary definition, revolves around a central concept of an entity with supernatural powers. It may be the case that you are attributing a much broader meaning to the term, beyond its normal usage (in which case the onus is on you to clarify what you mean by the term. It seems to me that you are).

This concept of deity is qualitatively different to other human abstractions - it involves a presence of something beyond the human realm entirely, something from another realm, it is something possessing or attributed with supernatural powers, powers not available or experienced in the physical world we inhabit.

Can a concept of a deity thus understood, pre-exist its conceptualisation? That seems to me to be most unlikely, unless you wish to posit that humans instinctively deify things. While you are of course free to argue that, I don't get the impression that is what you wish to argue. It’s difficult for me to see where such an abstract concept could originate except in a language empowered human mind, through something akin to the incremental process we discussed earlier.




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625