Mysticism is the antithesis to reason. Reason is our only means to knowing reality. — AppLeo

I think an understanding of what you said depends on understanding the different modes of thinking.
Understanding the difference between accumulating facts and analyzing those facts with mathematical and scientific thinking and mysticism or the debating Scholastics were doing, are completely different modes of thinking.

The Church promoted Scholasticism and Scholastic scholars argued how many angels could stand on the head of a pin and if Eve had hadn't eaten the forbidden would babies be born miniature adults instead of helpless babies? They took a lot of pride in their serious contemplation of truth. That is how the Greeks came to argue what is true and good following Aristotle, and we should all know, Aristotle didn't have an understanding of the importance of experimenting to gain facts, and basing our understanding on evidence that can be observed. There was severe backlash against Aristotle that ended scholasticism and brought us into the modern age. Grrrr I am out of time, Here is link that may help...

Combining these two forms of logical reasoning together with the three different types results in the following distinguish in logical reasoning:
Deductive. Formal deductive reasoning. Informal deductive reasoning.
Inductive. Formal inductive reasoning. Informal inductive reasoning.
Abductive. Formal abductive reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?q=different+modes+of+logic&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&oq=different+modes+of+logic&aqs=chrome..69i57.6676j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Contents
3.1 Syllogistic logic.
3.2 Propositional logic.
3.3 Predicate logic.
3.4 Modal logic.
3.5 Informal reasoning and dialectic.
3.6 Mathematical logic.
3.7 Philosophical logic.
3.8 Computational logic.
More items...

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&ei=kj5HXLqbFN-Ck-4Pp9GvyAQ&q=types+of+logic+in+philosophy&oq=different+modes+of+logic&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i71l8.0.0..169127...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.yxUPt9ieSoc
— google

Not all thinking is the same, and if we are using the scientific method we may not put much faith in mysticism. What I said of the difference between Christian and scientific thinking, and these people with their different approaches to knowing truth, do not trust each other.

You don't really believe this do you, it's a joke right. — Rank Amateur

I question if the general public understands that difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking, fast thinking and slow thinking, nor between doing math and thinking mathematically, so let us work on that...

http://maverikeducation.blogspot.com/2014/05/doing-math-vsthinking-mathematically.html

Doing math is an operation. It's about arithmetic and applying mathematical procedures such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, estimation, and measurement to solve an algorithmic or story problem correctly and successfully. It's all about the reproducing and applying facts and procedures to achieve or attain that correct answer because, in the end, that's all that mattered - get the correct answer!

Thinking mathematically is an art - specifically, as Lockhart (2002) states, "the art of explanation. It's about actively developing deeper knowledge, understanding, and awareness of mathematical concepts, practices, and processes - more specifically, analyzing how, evaluating why, and creating new ways of thinking about and using mathematics. It focuses on deeper understanding of procedural knowledge, deeper thinking about conceptual knowledge, and deeper awareness of how mathematics can address, handle, settle, or solve real world issues, problems, and situations. — maverikeducation

Most parents can help their children do basic math, but the new math is not the basic math most of us learned. The difference is so great, schools should have night classes for parents to learn new math so they can help their children with homework. The children whose parents can not help them are at an extreme disadvantage because it is learning a thinking skill, not just adding and subtracting. Most of us grew up with timed math test. That was is using the Behaviorist Method for education that is also used for training dogs. There is a stimulus and response. It is fast thinking. New Math is slow thinking.

Try taking out the word Christian in your sentence and insert black people and see how it reads — Rank Amateur

Black people can also be Christians. Politically the problematic group is not Blacks as a race but Christians as a group. Blacks as a group do not believe they are the only ones who know God's truth. Christians as a group, believe they are the only ones who know God's truth. These people are using a book for evidence and that is not how historians or scientist look for validation of what they believe. Because Christians are using their interpretations of a holy book to know truth, they can not come to an agreement on what truth is. Whatever, the word "Christian" is not equal to the word "Blacks".

Generally, this is the majority of how people behave with these types of questions, tribalism rather than actually thinking. — Christoffer

Your writing is so beautiful and I regret I am out of time and energy. I what to share a couple of thoughts just to keep the momentum moving forward.

I want to nominate Daniel Kahneman for a noble prize. His explanation of our two systems of thinking is perhaps something we want to add to your thoughts of universal thinking verses being tribal. The issue is a most important education issue that we seriously need to discuss. We can not do better unless we learn better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8gpV-xjECM

Secondly, we used to read moral stories to our children. A moral is a matter of cause and effect. At the end of the moral story, we would ask, what is the moral of that story, and the answer would be something like, because he didn't give up he succeeded.... Because no one helped the Little Red Hen, she did not share her bread with them... the king and all the adults, were vain and foolish when they believed the tailors who said the cloth of the new suit would reveal who was smart and who was stupid, and when the king paraded down the street in his underwear, the little boy who called out he had no clothes on became the hero. We should not be afraid to call it as we see it.

When we understand morals as a matter of cause and effect they are easily changed with better reasoning. The other side is understanding morals are about cause and effect, is it is vital to our liberty and democracy to hold that understanding or morals. Our reality is as Cicero said- if we do the right thing we get good results and if we do the wrong thing we get bad results. That makes our moral judgment vitally important. No amount of prayers or animal sacrifices or popularity will get good results if we are wrong. Whatever happens, it is the consequence of what we say and do.

Our freedom of speech is the freedom to reason, not the freedom to say anything we please. We have anarchy confused with freedom and this is disastrous! Freedom comes with responsibility. Like it is foolish to walk a dog in a city without a leash, it is also foolish to allow some humans off the leash because their judgment is no better than their dog's. This is an education problem that is not being addressed by education for technology.

AppLeo
37
We derive order from our own understanding of the universe. The universe is independent of order. What would be a disordered universe? By saying the universe has order, it's implying that a creator created the universe. The universe wasn't created. — AppLeo

If the universe was not created, why does it appear to be our reality? Of course, there is the Hindu explanation that this is all a dream and when the dreamer wakes up, it all starts over again. Our reality could be a hologram or multi-dimensional and what we perceive could be only a tiny part of what is. For sure it is all energy and at the atomic level, the rules of physics are not the same as the rules we have thought hold the universe together. but we can use those laws of physics to create and destroy. That gives us evidence for believing in them.

Laugh, instead of questioning if there is a god, should we be questioning if there is a manifested reality? My perceptions could be all wrong, but I perceive a created universe, and that I can follow the laws and get good outcomes, or violate the laws and get bad outcomes. For there to be a manifest reality there are laws of physics that give it order. At least for the universe I perceive, all depends on those laws and order.

Of course, if our sun slipped into another dimension, it would take at least 8 minutes for the darkness to reach us and without its gravity, we would no longer be held in an orbit around it. Then our argument about of if the universe was created and if it has order or not, wouldn't really matter. :lol:

Im not sure how to respond to any of that. Im glad that my questions amuse you, but you didnt really address anything I said.
You arent really offering anything of substance, the words are just empty assertions. You could replace “god” with any gibberish word and lose nothing from your statements.
Also, did you just state with pride that you were banned for being frustrating? That doesnt sound like a good thing. — DingoJones

Oh dear, I didn't think my thoughts were that different. :worry:

Oh yes, I was banned from a science forum for speaking of god as I speak of god and it hurt a lot. Whenever I get excited about an argument and start having one realization after another, and become euphoric as my sense of enlightenment grows, I get banned. That is a huge crash from my euphoric state of being. For you to say I don't make any sense is disheartening, but at least I am not worried about you banning me, and you ask questions! What a gift those questions are. I try to say things that make people question what they think, but I am not doing so well when it is taken as gibberish.

There is no substance to an abstract. Reach out your hand and try to pull a 4 out of the sky. Do you pay attention to math and things like string theory? That is where this crazy thinking begins with the Greeks and math. The Sumerians and Egyptians were much better at math than the Greeks, but then some geek Greeks like Archimedes, Democritus, Diophantus, Eratosthenes, Euclid, Hipparchus, Heron Of Alexandria, Ptolemy and Pythagoras began playing with math concepts. They advanced math from practical mathematics to abstract concepts. The ideal and universal truth. The triangular shape is not just what you make with a rope and use as a tool, but on earth, the moon, and Mars a triangle is a triangle. That is a quantum leap of intelligence. It is abstract, not concrete.

With math, we can know the unknowable. I have college lectures where a professor can talk about math and knots for hours. With math, we can learn of DNA and the universe. I am not a mathematician, but I read books and listen to lectures explaining how math can be used, and why we believe this and that. I wish I were young with a more pliable brain and had a math coach who could help me understand the mysteries of math. Math is about so much more than numbers! The book "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe" gives a very different understanding of god than holy books. Each number, 1 through 10 represents a concept of nature. With this knowledge, we have cured more evil than religions have. To know god is to understand how the universe works and this is pretty important to our survival and good moral judgment.

We may be on the verge of another math breakthrough that will radically change our perception of reality. Math has changed and changed since we first began thinking in terms of numbers. As math changes so does our understanding of reality change. When someone says the universe is not ordered, I can not deal with that. It is like telling a Christian there is no god. To see reality through math is a very different perspective that trying to understand it by reading a holy book.

Okay, I am bowing out of this discussion. This is really, really sad that at this point in time, there can are people who believe the universe doesn't have order.

Folks here is your problem. Education for technology has not resulted in people having a good understanding of reality, and there is no point in arguing with them. Their religious belief is the poison that is being questioned. They are sure they know truth and won't question what is true. We are in serious trouble!

You left out the group that read the holy books, looked at their message and their purpose. Thought deeply about them. And find meaning in them, and by faith chose against the other alternatives to believe them.

You point is just the same old tired and complete false belief that dumb people believe and smart people don't

Especially my Christian friends avoid math and science because they just don't want to make the effort of thinking.
— Athena

This is just patently false, and insulting. Take out the word "christian" and put in any other group and see how it reads.

as is the rest of the paragraph - it is pure bigotry — Rank Amateur

You made some excellent points. I listen to college lectures and know without question that some of our countries highly honored professors are Christians. However, a problem comes up when they are arguing with an atheist who may have a math and science foundation of knowledge because their foundation of knowledge is so different. You see, it is not a matter of IQ but rather a matter of having different foundations for knowledge. A similar problem comes up when speaking of people from different cultures with different religions.

We can take out the word "Christian" and put in the words, Hindu, Buddist, Jew, Muslim, Taoist. Are you as willing to honor these people as you want us to honor Christians, or does the term bigot apply only when speaking of non-believers and Christians? Are you equally willing to honor all other religions? A big problem I have with religious people is they tend to believe they know God's truth and everyone else is wrong unless they are Hindu or Buddist. Do you believe you know God's truth and everyone else is wrong? Do you point a figure at those others and say they are ignorant? I know Christians mean well but they have made enemies with their certainty that they know God's truth and others do not.

No one pondered Christianity more than Martin Luther and he believed God determined who would be masters and who would be servants and that the witch hunts were necessary. He lived with a lot of ignorance. Studying the bible does not resolve that problem.

I like the Bhagavad Gita explanation of being a good person better than the Biblical explanation. I like the notion that wise sagas are important to us, and that this is human wisdom, not the word of God. I think the notion that a God spoke to only a few people very suspect of error. Like if God does work that way, then Allah corrected the religious ideas of Jews and Christians when he gave the correct explanation to Mohammed, right? Or how about this, God spoke to the Jews his chosen people and later comers shouldn't mess this up with new stories and we should be sacrificing animals as God commanded us to do, and all the pagans did at that time, although those pagans were not worshipping the right god, but they got the need to sacrifice animals right. Of course, before you decided what is God's truth, you studied all the other religions so you could make an informed decision, right? That is what you mean by giving the decision a lot of thought, right?

If the people do ask questions of the religion available to them, what questions are they asking and where are they looking for answers? We can reasonably argue the universe is ordered and therefore there must be a god. It is everything else they believe about reality, humans, and god that matters. It is not just a question of if there is or isn't a god. Does God talk to us as Quakers believe, or just a few people, or is Joseph Campbell right about god speaking to everyone, only people in different environments and with different cultures understand Him differently?

You know there are Christians who avoid math and science because they don't want to put the effort into learning math and science, so your logic that what I said is false has to be an emotional response not your reasoned response. In general, people avoid learning math and science, even professors. This becomes a problem when people who have at least some understanding of math and science are arguing with those who do not. Their argument cannot be based in logical because they are not working with the same foundation of knowledge.

I would say that is a description “b)”, no meaningful definition of god. You have taken some ideas you had and called it god. Why? Couldnt you avoid alot of confusion by not using the word god?
An unknowable god is not a meaningful definition either. It describes nothing, has no exlanatory power at all, no substance at all that would necessitate the use of the term “god”.
So I still disagree. — DingoJones

:hearts: I love your questions and over the years have had to answer them many times. Christians and atheist both hate me. :lol: A mod in a science forum got so frustrated with me, he banned me.

What happens when we insist God is unknowable?

What is wrong with confusion? Isn't it a whole better than being sure we know the truth?

Why does a god have to be defined? Really why does a god need to define? The moment we think we know god, we know god not. Do you get the logic of that statement? All we can know is what we think we know, and God is beyond our comprehension so perhaps we should not be too sure of what we think we know as we should not be too sure there are only 3 dimensions.

It totally changes the argument with religious people when there is agreement that there is a god. It is much better than spending eternity going around in a tiny circle about the existence of God. End that stupid argument! God exist, now what? Now we have a chance of having meaningful arguments. Atheists can join this larger argument if they can get past their knee jerk compulsion to argue there is no god. And really how much abstract thinking is there in the argument that there is no god? Atheists are shooting themselves in the foot when they block intelligent discussion with the one argument that there is no god. Their stupid argument only proves to the Christians that they are right because the Bible speaks of those evil non-believers. How logic is it for atheists to keep proving them right when their goal is to prove them wrong? Change the argument.

I have no problem with the existence of God. The universe is obviously ordered or we would not be here to argue the point. Now can we get information?

If the deduction of a speech that criticizes a specific ethnic group, concludes that it is not based on facts and that the criticism is coming from an emotional reaction out of a fear of the unknown (fear of another ethnicity). The deduction itself has proven it to be a harmful speech against this group and that the possible consequences of such a speech may stir up hate against this ethnic group, further pushing a division between people and the rise of racism between them. No one decided this, the deduction and breakdown of the speech decided this. — Christoffer

That is beautiful! :hearts: That is the kind of thinking that attracts me to the forum and gives me hope for humanity. We must get back to education for the higher order thinking skills, so that we have a civilization that understands them. That is essential to defending our liberty and democracy.

The are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. In the US we stopped transmitting our culture when education for technology replaced our liberal education. We killed the education Thomas Jefferson thought we must have to have a strong and united republic. Republic is our politic order. Democracy was our cultural/social order and it requires good logic skills and devotion to gaining knowledge. That leaves only authority over the people.

If we all understood the reasoning you gave us, we wouldn't need moderators because logical and social agreements would rule. We need moderators now because we have neither the understanding of logic nor the social agreements and things spin out of control without authority over us. That reality pushes the question of who has that authority and what qualifies someone to be a moderator, and should the accused have a defense and a trail? What is to prevent moderators from functioning like defensive alligators, and forcing us to submit to their authority simply because they have the power? I am new here, but I have been in forums for many years and mods who do not understand what you said may not be good mods. They can just be having a bad day, and some is banned with no defense. If we knew our history we might object to mods having that kind of power.

Purple Pond
275
Freedom of speech is important in that censorship can be abused by powerful institutions as a tool to disenfranchise certain people, making them less influential. If liberals and their ideas such as freedom, democracy, human rights are censored, their messages will not reach everyone. However, on the same coin, if fascist, Nazi, racist, and other hateful speech are censored, their toxic can be contained.

Some speech harms society, some speech hurts society, most speech does neither. The question is who should stem the flood of harmful speech? Well, it depends on the domain. In the public domain, the government can do something about harmful speech. But here's the key question, can we trust them? Governments have been known not to act in the interest of the people. As for the private domain (such as here in the philosophy forum), it's really the owners pejorative prerogative. Your house, your rules. For example, I see nothing wrong with YouTube banning Alex Jones form their website.

So it comes down to two questions:

In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech?

In the private domain, do you agree that what can be said is the owner's pejorative prerogative? — Purple Pond

Well, I have considered leaving the forum because of the increase in unpleasant experiences with immature and disrespectful people. I am strongly in favor of freedom of speech that is freedom to reason. However, statements like this are not what I consider the reasoning that we need to protect.

Okay, I'm sorry. There-there, hush now, mummy make it better. Would you like a tissue? How about a hug?

Are you done now? Can we continue? Or would you rather drag this out some more? — S

If I were a mod, I would nib this kind of posting in the bud. Post like that can ruin the forum because more mature people who are looking for intelligent and polite discussion what talk like that like they want trash thrown in their front yard. When talk like that takes over a forum, quality people leave.

Perhaps we want to understand reasoning a little better before making judgments about freedom of speech. Not all reasoning is the same. Humans can function on different levels from the level of alligators in the swap to the level of sages. Here is an explanation of the different levels of thinking...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8gpV-xjECM

The example of the post that should not be accepted as the freedom speech is not focused on the topic but is an intentional badgering that leads to trouble. That badgering is not defensible and it is not something we should protect.

Well yes, everyone must use reason to some degree or else they would be destroying their ability to live. — AppLeo

Not all reasoning is the same. People read holy books and take it on faith that the books are the best knowledge of life we can have. A few people willing to read the books, question the truth of what is said and look for evidence. That is a completely different level of thinking/reasoning.

To think on the higher level requires training for abstract thinking. Unfortunately, that was dropped when we replace liberal education with education for technology. The masses are stuck with thinking on the concrete level and have no awareness of the abstract level of thinking. We lack an understanding of thinking and how our brains work. Especially my Christian friends avoid math and science because they just don't want to make the effort of thinking. They want authority over them and to be free of responsibility and just obey God's chosen authority over us. Democracy is a huge responsibility they don't want. They want the lion king to return and restore paradise for them and they believe Trump is a great father for our country. :lol: Point- do we want democratic responsibility or a Great Father to rule us? We can reason in favor of either, but not of the reasoning will be high order reasoning.

I disagree, I think that any such concept is a) deism which is still theism b) isnt a meaningful definition of god or c) has no meaningful distinction from religion.
Can you explain your concept of god? — DingoJones

For me, the important differences are, the way we come to know God and what we believe about humans. Both are based in Greek philosophy. The Sumerians had a story telling us we were created to help the river stay in its banks. The Greeks didn't seem to have an idea of why men were made, but women were made to be both desirable to men and as a punishment for men. :lol: Down the road, philosophers decided everything had a purpose. Birds are born to fly, horses are born to run, and humans are born to think. Believing we are born to think is a whole lot different from what religion tells us! The very first story tell us desiring knowledge is what got us in trouble with God in the first place. I like the story of Pandora and the box a whole lot better! She opened the wedding gift from Zeus, not to gain the power of knowledge but because she was curious. This may sound like silly stories, but what they tell us about what we think of humans and knowledge is important. We are curious and want to know, and are born to think, no sin! NO SIN.

The God of Abraham holy books are about who has the authority and who is to obey. That is not compatible with democracy. The Greeks and Jews fought over who should get a job. The Jewish way was dependent on birthrights, and authority and jobs were inherited. The Greeks gave jobs to whoever was the most suited to do a job. This lead to war

The Maccabean Revolt (Hebrew: מרד החשמונאים‎) was a Jewish rebellion, lasting from 167 to 160 BCE, led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and the Hellenistic influence on Jewish life.
Maccabean Revolt - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt — wikipedia

Christians were very tied into this inherited authority notion until the renaissance brought pagan thinking into the community and transition to modernism began. This goes with exploration and commerce and people without royal blood getting wealthy and seeing life differently than the Christian story. Our story of God and what we believe about humans is very important!

Next is the curiosity and that we are born to think, as the bird is born to fly. Wanting knowledge is not a sin. Wanting knowledge of God is natural, and the only thing we can study is nature. The only thing we can study is nature. Essential to our liberty and democracy is understanding how things work. We are not sure if God is 3 dimensional or multidimensional. We are not sure string theory is getting us closer to understanding the reality of our reality? If you want me to define an unknown God, I can not do that. All I know is we don't know everything and need to keep our minds open.

The problem with being atheist is the closed mind and exaggerated opinion of humans as the highest authority. That is nuts. Humans don't know enough to think they are at the top of the chain. Collectively we can know a lot, but individuals can know very, very little. The more we know, the more we know of what we do not know. That leads us to the unknowable God. It keeps us humble and our minds open.

I don't agree with your judgement either.
Oy vey. — Valentinus

I am saying the God Abraham religions are not compatible with the democracy. I am also saying it is possible to have a concept of God that is separate from religion. Are you arguing against these points? Please clarify your argument.

This may not be the right forum for you. Bad manners is not the meaning of freedom of speech. You aren't a monster. Just immature.

I came here to share knowledge with others who are here to share knowledge, and I have a huge preference for maturity and civility. I don't think others have a right to tear down the standard that has been set here.

I don't see how the opinion you express here requires so much denigration. — Valentinus

Hopefully, S is young and will realize better in time.

Do you have any ideas about how the mental work of abstract thinking can be made comprehensible to those who know as little as S? I am feeling frustrated with this challenge. Nothing important about democracy is understood without understanding what abstract thinking has to do with liberty and democracy. It is a way of perceiving human capability and God, that is essential to understanding our liberty and democracy as rule by reason but how can this be explained so it is more understandable? This is not the Christian God but the Deist God.

Theism is the belief in the existence of at least one god. Atheism is its opposite of theism, the lack of belief in the existence of any gods. Deism is a type of theism, the belief in a god who created the universe, but does not intervene in it.
Theology: What is the difference between deism and theism? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/Theology-What-is-the-difference-between-deism-and-theism

My 11 year old great grandson understands arguing as an ego challenge rather than as a method to discover truth. A democracy is rule by reason, not rule by Trump deciding what is best for us. We are to argue what is so and what should be until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. Then we declare this a law as we have a law of gravity. It is universal, not special interest. We all agree to the follow the law because it makes sense and if we do not agree with it, it is our duty, our responsibility to persuade others that the reasoning is wrong, and of the better reasoning.

Again, this understanding is about abstract thinking. Democracy is a very complex concept. Believing democracy means everyone participates in the government and everyone has a degree of political power is nice but it also far from understanding the deeper meaning and more complex concept. The simple understanding most people have of democracy is concrete thinking, not abstract thinking.

Ah! I see. You were talking about abstract thinking, whereas I was talking about abstract thinking. :meh: — S

How do you define abstract thinking? I love your argument because it led to me finding the best definition of abstract thinking I have ever seen.

Concrete thinking refers to the thinking on the surface whereas abstract thinking is related to thinking in depth. Concrete thinking does not have any depth. It just refers to thinking in the periphery. ... While some mental process is involved in abstract thinking, no such effort is evolved in concrete thinking.Mar 31, 2010
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-concrete-and-abstract-thinking/ — Difference Between

Now that goes with Daniel Kahneman's explanation of "Thinking, Fast and Slow". Daniel Kahneman explains how our brains work and why even the most highly educated people can make terrible mistakes in judgment. Some people have a gut reaction to the notion of God and that is fast thinking. Those who question the existence of God are slowing down to ponder the deeper implications of the possibility of a God.

Here is a very short and excellent explanation of fast and slow thinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8gpV-xjECM

where everyone informed on everyone else, abortions outnumbered live births, and a simple politeness like holding a door open for someone was viewed with suspicion. — AJJ

You are speaking of the US, right? We have mandatory reporters. Teachers, health care workers, counselors and anyone working with people is such a way are mandatory reporters who can get in serious trouble if they do not report suspect abuse, and so much as holding a baby and hitting the wives car with a fist, can be reported as child abuse.

When we "liberated" women, increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty and abortions increased.

We used to laugh at the poverty of Russia and many people sharing homes. We now have people sharing homes and those living on the streets tend become like feral cats.

Wow. That's a blatant red herring. Just to clarify, is your "Okay" a concession to the following quote which you were responding to? — S

I often say things to prompt some thinking on what is said. If you want to argue a god is knowable that means doing some research, but the best we can do is research the manifestation of a mighty and powerful force and infer something about the mighty and powerful force and that is being done.

Analogies are just supposed to show that there's something in common, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. — S

But what does the mighty and powerful force have in common with the Loch Ness Monster? How is our thinking of the two same? Now if you are speaking of Zeus or the God of Abraham, they share in common imaginary ideas of what exists. But I have said believing these notions of gods are real is concrete thinking, either they exist or they don't. Concrete.

I am speaking of abstract thinking and that makes the notion of god, a mighty and powerful force, completely open and now we can wonder if the manifestation is limited to 3 dimensions, or if there are multiple dimensions, and how might people living on another planet think of this god? We can ask why did other people say there are different gods? What truths do people share in common and on what do they do they disagree. There is so much more we can come to know when we think abstractly.

What made Athens so highly intelligent, leading some to believe they were a race of genius, is abstract thinking. In a world full of concrete thinkers, the people of Athens began thinking abstractly and this lead to science and the advancement of western civilization. Then like the US they became focused on technological correctness and began to atrophy.

If liberty and democracy are bad ideas then we currently have the best possible leader. — praxis

I love your reply.

You would debate whether relieving human suffering is a good idea or not? Granted that merely feeding the hungry (1 out of 6 people currently alive, approximately), isn’t a fix to universal human flourishing, but the effort would be in the right direction, I believe. — praxis

Yes, I would debate the notion that it is possible to do that, and I would debate the idea that it is a good thing to do. A debate is about gaining information and that is important to have a good plan. I am concerned that the food supply is very vulnerable and that this problem is getting rapidly worse. Also feeding people results in breeding people and that makes the problem worse.

DiegoT
285
↪S so these movements say. But we can not study social phenomena from the point of view of the phenomena themselves; the scientific study of the Bible started to progress when an author questioned that the Torah was written by Moses. You can not ask, say, FARC narco terrorists what they are; they will tell you they are the people´s army of liberation. You need to observe and compare with similar phenomena before making a classification. I argue that communism and christianism are part of the same phenomenon because they share many common features, not to mention a common origin. — DiegoT

In 1830 Tocqueville wrote that Christian democracies becoming a despot, a totalitarian government that would so control our lives our lives they would be meaningless and unfulfilling. I have always seen the conflict between communist and Christians totally baffling. Communism is applied Christianity, isn't it?

Rather, it's what I believe are two essential qualities of what may be regarded as 'religion', which I point out in response to DiegoT's query. — praxis

I do not think you find that in Hinduism or Buddhism?

Counterproductive to what purpose? If God's not the ultimate authority then who does God answer to? — praxis

Ah, God is the authority of what and how does that work? What you said is completely incomprehensible to me because I do not believe there is a God that can be as a human authority. There is a right way and wrong way to do things, but that is not because a god says this is so. It simply is how things work. Our planes can appear to violate the laws of gravity because of taking advantage of air flow, and there is no god authority that says this is how things will be. It is the laws of physics that makes it so. Starting a war with another country may have some benefits but the problems will likely outweigh the benefits, although we are unlikely to be conscious of them. If we were more conscious it is unlikely we would engage in war. That is saying, it is wrong to start a war because of the destruction, not because a god wants us to war or doesn't want to war. We are the only human authority. The mighty and powerful force is not such an authority.

This is a non sequitur that you cannot promise me, unless you're a God or something. Maybe there is a God and he gets a kick out of critter sacrifices." — praxis

What evidence do you have that there is a god that would want animal sacrifices? Without evidence why would anyone think a god would want such a thing and what would be the qualities of such a god? Frankly, I think it is repulsive for humans to think they can manipulate a god to do their will by sacrificing animals or saying prays. Perhaps we should try cannibalism and see how well that works. I can not judge that myself but must wait for a god authority that I don't believe exist, to tell me cannibalism and sacrificing animals doesn't please a god? That is nuts. It is a good example of why such a belief is counterproductive. It prevents us from knowing truth. Welcome to the dark ages, brought on by Christian thinking. No thank you, that is what I am opposing.

"Trouble" is a little ambiguous so I can't quite agree that science is important to staying out of it, or even that staying out of it is a desirable objective. — praxis

Yeap, welcome to the dark ages brought on by Christian thinking. And folks, god has allowed Satan to have power on earth and we are in the last days, so ignore what science has to say about global warming, and those who are quite sure destroying another country is not the will of God. This is a huge thinking problem and I hope we get past it.

Liberal education prepares us for scientific thinking and good moral judgment (abstract thinking). That is not education for technology (concrete thinking) Your thinking here has been concrete, not an abstract and this is a serious problem in the world today. It seems you need a Bible to tell you cannibolism is not okay because you don't think we can make these moral (science) judgments for ourselves. That means liberty and democracy are not possible, so why are we paying so much to defend our democracy? Maybe China has better leaders and can give us a better economy and better defense? What would make a president of the US a better leader if liberty and democracy are bad ideas?

The science exists to end world hunger, as well as many other human challenges, yet millions starve to death each year. Fuck religion and science, people need to wake up. — praxis

We can also feed all the stray cats and dogs, and I do not think that is a good idea. If you want to start a thread to debate if we can feed the world or not, and if that is a good idea or not, pm me and I will throw in my two cents worth.

First of all, you need to stop saying that it's unknowable if you're going to tell me about it. That's a blatant contradiction. — S

Okay, and how do you propose we go about researching God?

It's like if you were to tell me that the Loch Ness Monster exists, and then when I react with disbelief, you explain that you only meant as an abstraction, it would deflate the issue to a triviality. — S

I hardly think a notion of God is equal to a notion of the Loch Ness Monster. How could an argument about the existence of a Loch Ness Monster be abstract? The existence of a Loch Ness Monster is universal in what way? How would knowledge of a Loch Ness Monster make us think or behave differently? Compared to the notion of a mighty and powerful force that we must come to understand for our very survival. Are you wanting to argue there is no mighty and powerful force that gives form to the three dimensional experience we have, and 2+2 does not equal 4 on the moon or Mars but only on earth does 2 + 2 equal 4, or that a triangle on Mars is not the same as a triangle on earth? Are you understanding what math has to do with abstract thinking? Would "do unto others as you would have them do to you", be different on a different planet?

Sure. That's the false or unsubstantiated side of the fork. — S

I am sorry, I do not understand the meaning of that sentence. Greek stories of the gods contain truths. When we interpret them abstractly we can have the advantage of the truths. However, if we interpret the stories concretely then our understanding is false. Same with interpreting the Bible. There is wisdom in holy books and we see it when are thinking abstractly, however, when we are thinking concretely we have false beliefs mixed up in the wisdom and the result of this can be very bad. That is why the church didn't want uneducated people to have Bibles that they could read for themselves. Things like the witch hunts, or beating the devil out of our children, can come out of uneducated people reading the Bible.

Most glaringly, an absolute authority figure (more than an idealized personality), and an aspect of transcendence. — praxis

That appears to be the Christian hang up I hope we get past. Christians have humanized a God and that is not necessary to have a belief in a mighty and strong force that manifest our three-dimensional experience of reality. The Christian God authority is counterproductive. I promise you there is no God that wanted animal sacrifices. However, there is a right way and wrong way of doing things. When we do things right we get good results and when we do things wrong we get bad results. Believing a God will save our sorry asses so we don't have to use science to figure things out, is a mistake. Do you see the difference between believing there is a supernatural authority and believing science is important to staying out of trouble? Going from town to town flogging yourself or burning witches will not spot plagues, but science can.

First of all, you need to stop saying that it's unknowable if you're going to tell me about it. That's a blatant contradiction. — S

Why is it a contradiction to say there is a mighty and powerful force that is beyond our comprehension? We can know creation is the result of a mighty and powerful force. We experience the manifestation of that mighty and powerful force and we can study the manifestation of this force, so we can know of the manifestation, but the mighty and powerful is beyond our comprehension. Maybe someday as we explore the energy of all creation more fully or/and if we come to understand multiple dimensions, we might think we comprehend the mighty and powerful force, but not today. There is no contradiction. We do not know everything.

I like the saying, the beginning of wisdom is "I don't know." When we think we know something, we stop learning of it. It is better to think we don't know, than to believe we do know. That is to say when we think we know God, we know not God, but only what we think we know.

I do not agree at all that the concept of an abstract god is trivial. This unknowable God is essential to preventing humans from believing they are the highest power and preventing them from projecting themselves into a concept of a god and believing they can know the know the will of God. All they can know is what is going on in their human minds. They can not know God nor the will of a god. That is something we need to make perfectly clear. The mighty force is not a human force, nor a superhuman force. We must stop projecting ourselves into a notion of this mighty force.

The Greeks moved away from their gods when they got into math and science. We now know earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, and hurricane, and so on, happen because of natural cause-effect. The Greeks concluded even the gods were under the law. Unlike the God of Abraham, especially when this God is taken over by Christians, becomes a God who can do anything he wants, and violate any laws of nature He wants to violate. A supernatural god who can be manipulated with our piety, offerings, and rituals. That is a supernatural god far beyond the powers of nature gods, and these Christian yahoos destroyed the pagan temples where math and medicine were taught and set us back thousands of years cutting off from the knowledge that had been gained over many centuries.

Cicero, one of the most important men in Roman, read by all who were curious of democracy, explained what happens is about nature, cause and effect, and our sacrifices and prayers will not change the consequences of what we say and do.

However, trying to understand the unknowable god, that mighty force, universal law, the cause and effect that rules our lives, means opening our minds to infinity and all possibilities. Now and only now is there a hope of democracy meaning rule by reason, and not rule by authority over us. This is not trivial and atheist who deny a mighty force greater than their own, are not an improvement.

Or, as I like to call it, false vs. trivial. — S

I do not understand that logic. Can you explain how the difference between abstract and concrete can equal the difference between false vs. trivial? Possibly illusion versus reality- everything is energy but we perceive a solid reality, however, this does not make our perception false. Ice is made of water, but that does make ice a false concept. And judging our perception of a solid reality as trivial isn't very helpful. "Trivial" is a completely different judgment than one of truth and falseness. As long we are caught up in space and time, understanding this disillusion seems paramount. A reality outside of time and space would matter why?

This in that both God and the self in the above definitions are outside time and space, giving justification to the idea that God’s “Self” could be part of a Being like us, — Elrondo

I am totally cool with a god being outside time and space, but how could such a god be a being like us?
Such a god could not experience what we experience and therefore could not have knowledge of the experience of being human, and therefore could not be a being like us. We experience time and space as limited and that includes a life span and losing people we love. Isn't there an argument that Jesus was the solution to this problem? God had to become incarnate to have the experience and therefore gain the knowledge of being human. But then one has to believe the Hebrew and Christian mythology to believe that, and I do not know why we should do that?

This is the same bad logic that gun advocates use. You can kill someone with almost anything, therefore we shouldn't ban guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Should we ban people?

Except that people kill people with guns, and guns are a good tool for that job. Similarly, terrorists blow people up, and religion is a good tool for creating terrorists. — S

I love your explanation of logic. :cheer:

Wars are good for religion and religion is good for war. :wink:

AngryBear
13
↪S Agreed, however I think Athiesm is relatively young, and so in time I think people will get to a point were godless philosophy could be used to kill and terrorize. I hope i'm wrong. — AngryBear

We need to look no further than (Christian) Nazi Germany and Communist countries to answer that question. People who believe they can know absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous. However, when God is an abstract, no one can know absolute truth. An abstract god is unknowable and beyond our comprehension. An abstract god is not a humanized god like Zeus and the God of Abraham, and for sure an abstract god does not have favorites, or help people win wars, or protect humans from their own folly.

Only when there is no perceived power greater than humans, or when God is a concrete notion, such as Zeus or the God of Abraham, can people believe they know absolute truth and become a threat to others. Such a god can and does pull people into wars and lead to very bad judgment such was putting the economy first and destroying the planet with ignorance.

Yowee! you got me in a corner. I was hoping someone else would understand this difference in education and the difference in abstract and concrete thinking and say things better than I have said them. But now that you ask, I am excited by the thoughts that come to mind.

I looked for a definition of "god" and got "a mighty and powerful force". Okay, that applies to all gods because it is an abstract, universal thought. We can have so much applying this abstract notion of a god, to the Greek gods. Each god and goddess is a concept, I like Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s explanation of gods and goddesses as archetypes best. Each of us has an inner god or goddess and the one that dominates us may change as we age. I was a Demeter goddess when I was a mother. Now I am Athena because my focus is political and about teaching men how to rule themselves, or defending democracy as I understand it. There is absolutely no question in my mind that these gods and goddess exist, as Bolen understands them. Concepts are very powerful! Now apply this reasoning to the God of Abraham. Exactly what is this God?

Every discussion I have seen uses only the Christian concept of God, and there are only two choices, either you believe in this one and only God, or you are an atheist. Bull shit! That is concrete thinking, not abstract thinking. Something happened to human consciousness and I am not exactly sure what but to hold there are can be only one god, the god of Abraham, is to concrete and not abstract thinking of god. Whatever god can be? Once we attempt to define god, we know not god.

Paul was wrong when he defined the unknown god as the knowable Jesus. We do not directly experience God, therefore, we can not know God, but some people did directly experience Jesus. It is sort of sleight of hand to make something as concrete as a human being the God that is beyond our comprehension. Does anyone else see this? It is the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking. A god that is unknowable and beyond our comprehension is an abstract god. A god that is jealous, revengeful, punishing and fearsome is not an abstract god. As soon as we ascribe human traits to a god, it is no longer an abstract concept of god and now we have another sleight of hand.

It becomes impossible to discuss an abstract god, the moment that god is made concrete, (humanized). Now we are not talking about God, an abstract concept, but what we believe about a god and the rightness of this god's mythology. This is a trap like the tar baby in the Brer Rabbit stories. The more you hit the tar baby created by concrete mythology (humanized god), the more stuck you are in the tar. Did God make man out of mud and was there a flood? Sumerian stories tell us this so, only Sumerian stories are about many gods. We have no scientific reason to believe a god made us of mud and walked in a garden with us. Abstract thinking of a mighty and powerful force just doesn't take our minds there. There is no god who had favorite people, but at that time, everyone thought they had a patron god or goddess who took care of them. This false concept of gods and goddess became the one and only god and we still go to war believing this god is on our side, even when we are fighting a Christian enemy. This is not the god of all. The god of all is an abstract mighty and powerful force with no favorites and no human characteristics, no jealousy and no desire for revenge. Concrete versus abstract.

Alright. Maybe it was a bit full-on considering the context. I will say I've seen writers go on for years at the same not-very-good level while receiving all the while warm well-intended praise/encouragement that only serves to prevent them improving, but, yes, criticism can be misplaced too. — Baden

I will agree constructive criticism is a benefit. And so is just looking for information about how to write, how to publish, and whatever information the book may need. The internet is great for getting information, and there are really good books to help an aspiring writer. Reading is important to writing. We read to learn style and technological points such as how to construct a sentence, or how to develop a character. Writing a factual book is different from writing a novel, and in our technological society, I have seen a greater focus on validating facts, than in the past, if one is writing non-fiction. It is a little intimidating. Serious authors often have the money to travel around the world and dine with influential people. That is not a benefit I have.

No matter why we write, the effort benefits our thinking and that can make it worth the effort even if we don't publish.

I love "The Never Ending Story" and also "Sophies World".

Sophie's World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy (FSG ...
https://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-History-Philosophy-Classics/.../0374530718
A page-turning novel that is also an exploration of the great philosophical ... with a mysterious philosopher, while receiving letters addressed to another girl.
21 Books Written by and About Women That Men Would Benefit From ... — Amazon

What I like about "Sophie's World" is learning about classical philosophy with the added mystery of who was writing those notes? I could identify with the young girl and I enjoyed the hiding places as they reminded me of when I was young and exploring and hiding, so I would say the ability to identify with a character is important too.

Googling philosophy novels resulted in finding many links.

How about Christians preventing education in the higher order thinking skills, as was the agenda of the 2012 Texas Republicans? How about Christians insisting science books include their story of creation, which they did do Texas until a supreme court decided with the people of science that the creation story is not science. Without liberal education, Christians have become a very serious problem. Christianity without liberal education is what Germany had, and now that is what we have.

I agree that religions are very negative. They'd be fine if folks could somehow just keep their beliefs to themselves, but religions massively impact cultural mores, laws, etc. That's not just keeping the beliefs to oneself. — Terrapin Station

If we focus on the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking, we might change the argument enough to make some progress instead of repeating the same arguments again and again and again.

Trump is the result of replacing abstract thinking (liberal education) with concrete thinking (education for technology) and that is the end of the democracy we defended in two world wars. This is a religious and political problem. It returns us to tribalism and intensifies conflicts instead of uniting us.

There was a time when Jews, Muslims, and Christians believed they worshipped the same god. The three religions believing the God of Abraham, is the one and only true God. Then each new religious group thought they needed to correct the mistakes made those who when before. Same god, just differences how we understand God's truth and what is required of us. That is a problem with being concrete instead of abstract. If we were thinking abstractly, we would not be so sure of ourselves and ready to argue against another person's understanding of God.

We do not directly experience God, therefore God is unknowable. All we can know is stories of gods, not God. God is an abstract concept, that can be dressed up however the people chose to create their god or gods.

However, Jesus is concrete and essential to religion because we can not have an emotional relationship with an abstract concept, right? Paul went to the Greeks and argued for making an abstract God a concrete one, right? He is saying Jesus is a god and that is very concrete. He is saying a man is a god and that is concrete, not abstract.

Acts 17:22-31 (WEB): 22 Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, and said, “You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things. 23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I announce to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands, 25 neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. 26 He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live, and move, and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ 29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by art and design of man. 30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.” — Bible

If questioning the mods were not tolerated, there wouldn't be a feedback category. Plus, the guidelines specifically state that mods can not only be questioned, but censured and their decisions overturned. — Baden

This assures me important principles are being practiced.

It's not a democracy, it's a community with rules which overall work quite well in maintaining standards. But again, read the guidelines, and please note therein:

"If you feel from the get-go that their [the guidelines] very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you." — Baden

It's not a democracy, it's a community with rules which overall work quite well in maintaining standards. But again, read the guidelines, and please note therein:

"If you feel from the get-go that their [the guidelines] very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you." — Baden

Why did you feel a need to add the warning to your statement of principles? What is happening here?

I am sure what is happening is not the same thing for me as it is for you? I am having insights, little moments of ah, ha this is why the difference between concrete and abstract thinking is so important. I am concerned you are not thinking of the communication with the same abstract thinking. I am wanting to defend principles and you seem to perceive a possible threat to the tribe/community? The book "Suicide of West" throws a completely different meaning on my last words of tribalism/community than a person who has not read the book would have.

There is great danger in our communications because our words do not hold exact meanings. We come to everything from different points of view and we can see very different things although we think we are talking about the same thing. I think the principles you first mentioned are very important. I am worried that you thought it necessary to add a warning.

Bitter Crank
6.9k
↪Janis Someone should welcome you to The Philosophy Forum, so I will. Consider yourself one of the family. We're kind of a prickly family, however, so don't be surprised if you run into a bit of adversity every now and then.

The moderators are all volunteers: unpaid, unthanked, unappreciated, unrewarded, unloved, un-etc. They are mysterious behind the scenery characters. Like god, they move in mysterious ways. — Bitter Crank

But are they abstract thinkers of concrete thinkers?

Janis
11
Thanks for your response fdrake. It was not restored. I thought that maybe links to a book were not allowed. It seems that forums have different rules. It's an important work and to deny interested people the opportunity to read the first three chapters would be unfortunate. I'm not one who is going to debate a ruling though. — Janis

In a democracy with people who value liberty, what can more important than debating a ruling? Wouldn't that lead to rule by reason, rather rule by authority over the people? Oh, I know very well that questioning the mods is not tolerated and that the defense argument is these forums are privately owned and the rights of property trump everything else.

I am deeply concerned that we have accepted this reality without question. It is as though we have forgotten why we have trial by jury and why we allow the person charged to have a defense. :lol: I just posted in another thread the difference between abstract thinking and concrete thinking, and how we stopped educating for conceptual thinking. Understanding what I have said concretely or conceptually will result in extremely different interpretations of what I have said. Will the mods see this as concern about a fundamental principle (abstract) or will the mods see a personal challenge (concrete)? Do we want a reality where we afraid to say what we think is important or we are afraid to defend ourselves? What do we want our school children to learn? Keep your mouths shut and obey (concrete), or argue your point until there is a consensus on the best reasoning (abstract).