Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence... etc.

[JuliaL]

It actually works better if the espoused concept is arbitrary and untrue.  
People love defending lost causes.  Think Cubs fans.
How unique can you claim your sect is if just anybody can come up with the same answers?

I have a theory about this.  I think the goofier the myth, the more easily people can stick to it.  Understanding religion requries a suspension of rational thought.  Which is easier to give up on-- something that makes 90% sense, but you're working out the details?  Or something that makes 10% sense, and you just say "fuck it"?

To me, the former would encourage rational thought, as you try to polish off a near-perfect world view.  The latter is the one that causes you to really turn off that left brain and go instead with imagination and feelings.  Therefore, it will be easier to fully commit to a complete fairy tale than in something that seems plausible.

That makes sense to me.
It could also indicate that our tendencies to not question are co-evolved with the cultures we evolved in.
If someone is more gullible, they could be more easily taken advantage of. But they would also be more likely to buy into a cultural group which could protect them. It's easier to field armies if the members are in step physically and mentally.

[Pyrrho]

It actually works better if the espoused concept is arbitrary and untrue.  
People love defending lost causes.  Think Cubs fans.
How unique can you claim your sect is if just anybody can come up with the same answers?

I have a theory about this.  I think the goofier the myth, the more easily people can stick to it.  Understanding religion requries a suspension of rational thought.  Which is easier to give up on-- something that makes 90% sense, but you're working out the details?  Or something that makes 10% sense, and you just say "fuck it"?

To me, the former would encourage rational thought, as you try to polish off a near-perfect world view.  The latter is the one that causes you to really turn off that left brain and go instead with imagination and feelings.  Therefore, it will be easier to fully commit to a complete fairy tale than to something that seems plausible.

David Hume:

Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish extremely the assurance, which we might, from human testimony, have, in any kind of prodigy. The maxim, by which we commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the objects, of which we have no experience, resembles those, of which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is always most probable; and that where there is an opposition of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations. But though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree; yet in advancing farther, the mind observes not always the same rule; but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd and miraculous, it rather the more readily admits of such a fact, upon account of that very circumstance, which ought to destroy all its authority. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events, of which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.

With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality: he may [118] know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with equal force. His auditors may not have, and commonly have not, sufficient judgement to canvass his evidence: what judgement they have, they renounce by principle, in these sublime and mysterious subjects: or if they were ever so willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence: and his impudence overpowers their credulity.

Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection; but addressing itself entirely to the fancy or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues their understanding. Happily, this pitch it seldom attains. But what a Tully or a Demosthenes could scarcely effect over a Roman or Athenian audience, every Capuchin, every itinerant or stationary teacher can perform over the generality of mankind, and in a higher degree, by touching such gross and vulgar passions.

The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard to the most common and most credible events. For instance: There is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons of equal condition never see [119] each other twice, but the whole neighbourhood immediately join them together. The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known, that no man of sense gives attention to these reports, till he find them confirmed by some greater evidence. Do not the same passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and report, with the greatest vehemence and assurance, all religious miracles?

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_239

[JuliaL]

---

I have a theory about this.  I think the goofier the myth, the more easily people can stick to it.  Understanding religion requries a suspension of rational thought.  Which is easier to give up on-- something that makes 90% sense, but you're working out the details?  Or something that makes 10% sense, and you just say "fuck it"?

To me, the former would encourage rational thought, as you try to polish off a near-perfect world view.  The latter is the one that causes you to really turn off that left brain and go instead with imagination and feelings.  Therefore, it will be easier to fully commit to a complete fairy tale than to something that seems plausible.

---

David Hume:

---

Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish extremely the assurance, which we might, from human testimony, have, in any kind of prodigy. The maxim, by which we commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the objects, of which we have no experience, resembles those, of which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is always most probable; and that where there is an opposition of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations. But though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree; yet in advancing farther, the mind observes not always the same rule; but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd and miraculous, it rather the more readily admits of such a fact, upon account of that very circumstance, which ought to destroy all its authority. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events, of which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.

With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality: he may [118] know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with equal force. His auditors may not have, and commonly have not, sufficient judgement to canvass his evidence: what judgement they have, they renounce by principle, in these sublime and mysterious subjects: or if they were ever so willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence: and his impudence overpowers their credulity.

Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection; but addressing itself entirely to the fancy or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues their understanding. Happily, this pitch it seldom attains. But what a Tully or a Demosthenes could scarcely effect over a Roman or Athenian audience, every Capuchin, every itinerant or stationary teacher can perform over the generality of mankind, and in a higher degree, by touching such gross and vulgar passions.

The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard to the most common and most credible events. For instance: There is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons of equal condition never see [119] each other twice, but the whole neighbourhood immediately join them together.

---

The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known, that no man of sense gives attention to these reports, till he find them confirmed by some greater evidence. Do not the same passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and report, with the greatest vehemence and assurance, all religious miracles?

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_239

That Hume guy again...
I have uniformly found that every inspiration or thought with merit I have had in my long life has been anticipated.
But in this case Hume is being only descriptive of the pleasures that persons take in siding with the mob.
(the usual caveats and magical incantations to let me ignore solipsism and failed induction go here)
I want a model which accurately predicts results of actions taken.
At the moment, the best I have revolves around natural (of which artificial is a subset) selection among behaviors.  It may be that this is only the hammer I have.  It makes sense to me (unless I listen to Alex K in which case I slip into causal nihilism and nothing makes sense.)  We enjoy joining the mob because our forebears enjoyed doing so and the aggregation was more effective in our persistence and replication than going solo would have been.
I have a substantial background in biological sciences so my bias could be brainwashing too.

[Pyrrho]

---

---

David Hume:


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_239

That Hume guy again...
I have uniformly found that every inspiration or thought with merit I have had in my long life has been anticipated.

I find that annoying, too.  I remember in school encountering someone who told me that he envied me, because I was a disciple of Hume, and had found something with which to agree, and he had not found that.  I replied that I envied him in that I wished I had something original to contribute (though, to be more precise, I do not wish to be wrong, so I am glad I agree with Hume because of that).

But in this case Hume is being only descriptive of the pleasures that persons take in siding with the mob.

Not exactly.  I am only giving an excerpt relevant to the post to which I was replying.  I recommend that you read the entire book from which it is an excerpt.  (If you want, you can either start a thread with questions about the book as you read it, or you can PM me or send me emails about it.  The edition at my link is a good one, which can also be purchased in print.)  But also the passions of surprise and wonder (that you hid in your response) are independent of whether one is agreeing with the mob or not.

(the usual caveats and magical incantations to let me ignore solipsism and failed induction go here)
I want a model which accurately predicts results of actions taken.
At the moment, the best I have revolves around natural (of which artificial is a subset) selection among behaviors.  It may be that this is only the hammer I have.  It makes sense to me (unless I listen to Alex K in which case I slip into causal nihilism and nothing makes sense.)

The universe does not make sense.  Just ask Uncle K about it and he will tell you this, though possibly in a roundabout way.  That might depend on his mood at the time you ask him, how direct he will be.  But show him this post if you ask him, as I will be interested in seeing what he has to say about my characterization of this.  He is a pretty smart guy, so you should pay attention to what he says.  When he tells you that he does not completely understand the universe, you will know that what I am saying is true.  If it made sense, a smart guy like him would understand it all.  (Disagree with me now, Uncle K, I dare you!)

 We enjoy joining the mob because our forebears enjoyed doing so and the aggregation was more effective in our persistence and replication than going solo would have been.
I have a substantial background in biological sciences so my bias could be brainwashing too.

I do not know how to reply in a manner which some would not regard as rude.  And my reply would not really be a disagreement with your comments about enjoying joining a mob.

[JuliaL]

Not exactly.  I am only giving an excerpt relevant to the post to which I was replying.  I recommend that you read the entire book from which it is an excerpt.  (If you want, you can either start a thread with questions about the book as you read it, or you can PM me or send me emails about it.  The edition at my link is a good one, which can also be purchased in print.)  But also the passions of surprise and wonder (that you hid in your response) are independent of whether one is agreeing with the mob or not.

Thanks for your offer of assistance.
Sadly, I fall asleep reading paper.  Currently I'm in the middle of Programming Applications with .COM and progressing at about two pages per day.  But getting lots of rest.
I do better with MP3s because I can remain relatively active and stay awake.
A couple of years ago I did listen to a download of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.  Unfortunately my mind reacts to philosophy like my stomach does to (warning, culturally insensitive tactless comment ahead) a chinese dinner.  An hour later and I'm stupid again.
I've just downloaded it a second time.
Though it might be entertaining for the forum to read my naive nattering on it, but I know I'd find that embarrassing.  
It would be better if I were to PM you with my questions.

[Napoléon]

Let's grant for discussion the existence of the God described in the bibles and apologized for ever after...
He must exist, at least with respect to causation, outside our universe.
We know nothing about His powers in this alternate space.
For all we know He is far from omnipotent there.  In fact He could well be sulking over the poor marks He received in His semester universe creation assignment.
It would explain a lot.

You managed to express what I had in my head but for whatever reason couldn't manage to put into words.

[robvalue]

As far as the bible is concerned, God and his followers keep claiming he has omni-everything, but the actual stories involving God present a being with obviously very limited powers. So as usual, the bible totally contradicts itself and people can believe whatever the hell they want.

Personally, I'd take the stories of what God did as better evidence than a load of big talk. I reject the story about him making the universe in the first place. More big talk. How can anyone know that was true?

If we're a computer simulation, then "God" is a computer or its programmer. It could be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and so on in regard to our simulation. But in its own reality, as said above, it has no such powers.

This is why I find worship so bizarre. The simulation hypothesis is by far the most plausible "God" scenario, which means everyone's writing stories about a computer and its programmer, and thinking the programmer is immensely interested in them in particular. Given the size of the simulation, our extremely short species lifespan on this speck of rock is unlikely to be the focus of the whole thing.

[Pyrrho]

Not exactly.  I am only giving an excerpt relevant to the post to which I was replying.  I recommend that you read the entire book from which it is an excerpt.  (If you want, you can either start a thread with questions about the book as you read it, or you can PM me or send me emails about it.  The edition at my link is a good one, which can also be purchased in print.)  But also the passions of surprise and wonder (that you hid in your response) are independent of whether one is agreeing with the mob or not.

Thanks for your offer of assistance.
Sadly, I fall asleep reading paper.  Currently I'm in the middle of Programming Applications with .COM and progressing at about two pages per day.  But getting lots of rest.
I do better with MP3s because I can remain relatively active and stay awake.
A couple of years ago I did listen to a download of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.  Unfortunately my mind reacts to philosophy like my stomach does to (warning, culturally insensitive tactless comment ahead) a chinese dinner.  An hour later and I'm stupid again.
I've just downloaded it a second time.
Though it might be entertaining for the forum to read my naive nattering on it, but I know I'd find that embarrassing.  
It would be better if I were to PM you with my questions.

The lack of retention of information made me think of you taking a class rather than just reading a book on your own, but that does not go well with you falling asleep when reading paper (unless the effect does not occur with electronic copies, in which case you could take such a class if electronic versions of the book(s) were available).  Very often, talking about things helps one to retain the information.  In fact, if you can read the electronic version at the link I provided, what you could do is after each chapter, write out what you think are the most important points.  Not taking quotes, but writing things out in your words.  And trying to explain it to someone else would also help you retain the information.

As for the Chinese food, let me guess:  You do not eat much of the rice.  Eating the rice is essential for long-term satiety; it is part of the meal for a reason.