Curt Doolittle

Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

  • Gods Are Just Information

    —“Believing in gods as information is tantamount to atheism, because it asserts gods aren’t supernatural realities. Or have I misunderstood?’—Paul Bard

    Or believing in gods are supernatural realities is tantamount to lying because it asserts that gods aren’t just information. Atheism is denial of any such thing. the dispute is over supernatural or natural existence of gods. Only the natural is testifiable.

    —“Okay. So “praying to god” is directly connecting with the evolved civilisational strategy as an overall archetype?”—Paul Bard

    yes

    —“Got it. So atheism falsely presumes certainty over an undecideable. Thank you.”—Paul Bard

    Well done.

  • Gods Are Just Information

    —“Believing in gods as information is tantamount to atheism, because it asserts gods aren’t supernatural realities. Or have I misunderstood?’—Paul Bard

    Or believing in gods are supernatural realities is tantamount to lying because it asserts that gods aren’t just information. Atheism is denial of any such thing. the dispute is over supernatural or natural existence of gods. Only the natural is testifiable.

    —“Okay. So “praying to god” is directly connecting with the evolved civilisational strategy as an overall archetype?”—Paul Bard

    yes

    —“Got it. So atheism falsely presumes certainty over an undecideable. Thank you.”—Paul Bard

    Well done.

  • Auto-Association and The Bridge to Religion

    —“Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are a kind of break away Indo-European Gothar. In the same light of Zoroaster and Buddha. But I don’t believe you can have “science” as religion as pure logic.”—Bjorn Asbrandsson

    You can, you just choose different heroes of history, and understand how the brain makes auto-associations. God: tiwaz/tyr, spiritual leaders: odin-mind/thor-body, lawgiver: aristotle, statesman: aurelius, general: caesar, hero: alexander, warrior: Achilles; and debts to ancestors (spirits), nature (spirits), the universe(spirits) itself. That’s my pantheon. And my religion is painfully scientific (realism, naturalism, operationalism, auto-association) Its the auto-association that bridges science with what we call religion or faith. Took me a lot of work to figure that out.

  • Auto-Association and The Bridge to Religion

    —“Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are a kind of break away Indo-European Gothar. In the same light of Zoroaster and Buddha. But I don’t believe you can have “science” as religion as pure logic.”—Bjorn Asbrandsson

    You can, you just choose different heroes of history, and understand how the brain makes auto-associations. God: tiwaz/tyr, spiritual leaders: odin-mind/thor-body, lawgiver: aristotle, statesman: aurelius, general: caesar, hero: alexander, warrior: Achilles; and debts to ancestors (spirits), nature (spirits), the universe(spirits) itself. That’s my pantheon. And my religion is painfully scientific (realism, naturalism, operationalism, auto-association) Its the auto-association that bridges science with what we call religion or faith. Took me a lot of work to figure that out.

  • Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: 12 Point Summary

    GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY James C Russell’s ‘Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation’ (GOEMC) is an excellent study on the evolution of Christianity from a predominantly Mediterranean religion to a northern European one. [1] The book has recently gained popularity on the internet right, and it’s now regarded as a “must read” in some circles. Russell is a conservative historian and theologian who authored another book condemning the role of organized Christianity in the facilitation of mass immigration into the United States and other Western countries. [2] Russell published GOEMC through the Oxford University Press in 1994. SUMMARY In GOEMC’s concluding chapter, Russell summarized his work’s twelve main points. [3] (1) Early Christianity emerged from an urban, heterogeneous, and low social capital society. German society at the time of first contact with Christianity was rural, homogeneous, and high social capital. (2) Early Christianity was “world rejecting” and “salvation” focused. In contrast, the pre-Christian German worldview was world accepting and socio-biological (ethnic and immediate). (3) The first Christian missionaries to Germany accommodated Christianity to the religopolitical and magicoreligous elements of the German worldview. [4] (4) Early efforts to convert Germans to Christ resulted in the reinterpretation of Christianity through the Germanic worldview. (5) Catholic Christianity’s political reliance on Germanic nations, like the Franks, led to the increased influence of their interpretation of Christianity over the Western Church. (6) Some Germanic nations attempted to preserve their unique ethnic identity and independence by adhering to Arianism rather than subjecting themselves to the outside power of Church hierarchy. (7) The “Christianization” of the Germans was very shallow until at least the reign of Charlemagne (768 – 814) because there was no catechumanate system or qualified teachers to finish instruction. The Church prioritized baptism over teaching because they thought the apocalypse was near. The German worldview was too strong to allow full Christianization. (8) Early missionaries to the Germans were as successful as they could have been. If they had not accommodated Christianity to the German worldview they probably would not have found any success. (9) The initial accommodation of Christianity to the German worldview laid the foundation for later indoctrination of Christian worldview and ethics. (10) Christian missionaries misrepresented the extent of disparity between the Germanic and Christian worldview when initially accommodating Christianity to a fresh German audience. (11) Early Christian accommodation left Germans with the impression that Jesus was one among many magicoreligous gods to include in their pantheon. New German converts did not possess doctrinal or ethical concerns. (12) Contributing factors to Christianity’s German spread included: the association of Christianity with Frankish political aims, an imagined causal association of Christianity with Roman grandeur, and a coincidental similarity between German myths and Christian beliefs, rituals, and symbols. This book is in the P reading list. Source: https://cocmillennial.blogspot.com/…/germanization-of-early… (Apologies. I don’t know who sent me this link to me)

  • Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: 12 Point Summary

    GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY James C Russell’s ‘Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation’ (GOEMC) is an excellent study on the evolution of Christianity from a predominantly Mediterranean religion to a northern European one. [1] The book has recently gained popularity on the internet right, and it’s now regarded as a “must read” in some circles. Russell is a conservative historian and theologian who authored another book condemning the role of organized Christianity in the facilitation of mass immigration into the United States and other Western countries. [2] Russell published GOEMC through the Oxford University Press in 1994. SUMMARY In GOEMC’s concluding chapter, Russell summarized his work’s twelve main points. [3] (1) Early Christianity emerged from an urban, heterogeneous, and low social capital society. German society at the time of first contact with Christianity was rural, homogeneous, and high social capital. (2) Early Christianity was “world rejecting” and “salvation” focused. In contrast, the pre-Christian German worldview was world accepting and socio-biological (ethnic and immediate). (3) The first Christian missionaries to Germany accommodated Christianity to the religopolitical and magicoreligous elements of the German worldview. [4] (4) Early efforts to convert Germans to Christ resulted in the reinterpretation of Christianity through the Germanic worldview. (5) Catholic Christianity’s political reliance on Germanic nations, like the Franks, led to the increased influence of their interpretation of Christianity over the Western Church. (6) Some Germanic nations attempted to preserve their unique ethnic identity and independence by adhering to Arianism rather than subjecting themselves to the outside power of Church hierarchy. (7) The “Christianization” of the Germans was very shallow until at least the reign of Charlemagne (768 – 814) because there was no catechumanate system or qualified teachers to finish instruction. The Church prioritized baptism over teaching because they thought the apocalypse was near. The German worldview was too strong to allow full Christianization. (8) Early missionaries to the Germans were as successful as they could have been. If they had not accommodated Christianity to the German worldview they probably would not have found any success. (9) The initial accommodation of Christianity to the German worldview laid the foundation for later indoctrination of Christian worldview and ethics. (10) Christian missionaries misrepresented the extent of disparity between the Germanic and Christian worldview when initially accommodating Christianity to a fresh German audience. (11) Early Christian accommodation left Germans with the impression that Jesus was one among many magicoreligous gods to include in their pantheon. New German converts did not possess doctrinal or ethical concerns. (12) Contributing factors to Christianity’s German spread included: the association of Christianity with Frankish political aims, an imagined causal association of Christianity with Roman grandeur, and a coincidental similarity between German myths and Christian beliefs, rituals, and symbols. This book is in the P reading list. Source: https://cocmillennial.blogspot.com/…/germanization-of-early… (Apologies. I don’t know who sent me this link to me)

  • Religion is a Technology. We Don’t Need to Prove It’s True. Just Judge Its Effects (good and Bad)

    RELIGION IS A TECHNOLOGY. WE DONT NEED TO PROVE IT”S TRUE. JUST JUDGE ITS EFFECTS (GOOD AND BAD) by Frey Harman (edited for clarity) What we need to do is disprove this idea of needing to prove things. [CD: Or claim religion is ‘true’ rather than effective and quite possibly necessary.] Religion is a technology. Technology either works or it doesn’t. Science can’t do anything to technology except explain it. If we demarcate science from technology, science seeks general rules of the universe – to understand. Technology is usually developed by trial and error to serve a purpose – to act. And, [psychlogial and social] technology isn’t even based on science, nor informed by science. Often, technology outpaces science. I’m not sure why philosophy would have any more to say about the matter of religion as a technology than science does: regardless of whether it’s true or what general rules religions follow, the technology works or doesn’t, and works beneficially or harmfully. Nassim Taleb was somewhat influential in snapping me out of the false dichotomy between atheism and monotheistic fundamentalism – making me realize they’re two sides of the same coin; two interpretations derived ultimately from the same error. The error of taking things too literally. —“When someone discusses religious beliefs, he does not necessarily mean belief in the epistemic sense, and the relevance of the epistemic sense of the term decreases the further back ones goes in the fixation of the creed. Rather, such notions are rather closer to the root of “belief”: beloved, a sense of commitment, something related to the notion of trust. It is not coincidental that “credere” is related to letter of credit or financial transactions that entail trust (see Armstrong 1994; Boyer 2001). …. Accordingly it is an extremely naive interpretation to think that religious ‘beliefs’ map to the ‘justified true belief’ standards of modern epistemology (see Ichikawa and Steup 2014); it is naive to examine the supernatural aspect of religion as anything but epiphenomenal. One needs to think of religious ‘belief’ as closer to a form of trusting, as a form of action, or a willingness to take action, and, most crucially of all, as a set of interdicts upon action. Further, religion establishes a categorical demarcation between sacred and profane, and one that cannot be violated (see Eliade 1959). The sacred is not open to ‘rationalization’ what we don’t understand is not necessarily irrational, and it might have reasons that can be probed only across generations of experience and experimentation.”— Taleb

    By CurtD Great quote. This is correct. I state the same thing in economic language: by Belief (love, trust, respect, submission of self), religion (debt performance, oath), and anthropomorphisms (systems of measurement, choice, in payment of debt, in exchange for love and respect) provide the most intuitive system of behavior manageable by man. So as usual, Taleb is less ‘scientific’ and more ‘literary’ than I am.

  • Religion is a Technology. We Don’t Need to Prove It’s True. Just Judge Its Effects (good and Bad)

    RELIGION IS A TECHNOLOGY. WE DONT NEED TO PROVE IT”S TRUE. JUST JUDGE ITS EFFECTS (GOOD AND BAD) by Frey Harman (edited for clarity) What we need to do is disprove this idea of needing to prove things. [CD: Or claim religion is ‘true’ rather than effective and quite possibly necessary.] Religion is a technology. Technology either works or it doesn’t. Science can’t do anything to technology except explain it. If we demarcate science from technology, science seeks general rules of the universe – to understand. Technology is usually developed by trial and error to serve a purpose – to act. And, [psychlogial and social] technology isn’t even based on science, nor informed by science. Often, technology outpaces science. I’m not sure why philosophy would have any more to say about the matter of religion as a technology than science does: regardless of whether it’s true or what general rules religions follow, the technology works or doesn’t, and works beneficially or harmfully. Nassim Taleb was somewhat influential in snapping me out of the false dichotomy between atheism and monotheistic fundamentalism – making me realize they’re two sides of the same coin; two interpretations derived ultimately from the same error. The error of taking things too literally. —“When someone discusses religious beliefs, he does not necessarily mean belief in the epistemic sense, and the relevance of the epistemic sense of the term decreases the further back ones goes in the fixation of the creed. Rather, such notions are rather closer to the root of “belief”: beloved, a sense of commitment, something related to the notion of trust. It is not coincidental that “credere” is related to letter of credit or financial transactions that entail trust (see Armstrong 1994; Boyer 2001). …. Accordingly it is an extremely naive interpretation to think that religious ‘beliefs’ map to the ‘justified true belief’ standards of modern epistemology (see Ichikawa and Steup 2014); it is naive to examine the supernatural aspect of religion as anything but epiphenomenal. One needs to think of religious ‘belief’ as closer to a form of trusting, as a form of action, or a willingness to take action, and, most crucially of all, as a set of interdicts upon action. Further, religion establishes a categorical demarcation between sacred and profane, and one that cannot be violated (see Eliade 1959). The sacred is not open to ‘rationalization’ what we don’t understand is not necessarily irrational, and it might have reasons that can be probed only across generations of experience and experimentation.”— Taleb

    By CurtD Great quote. This is correct. I state the same thing in economic language: by Belief (love, trust, respect, submission of self), religion (debt performance, oath), and anthropomorphisms (systems of measurement, choice, in payment of debt, in exchange for love and respect) provide the most intuitive system of behavior manageable by man. So as usual, Taleb is less ‘scientific’ and more ‘literary’ than I am.

  • GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY James C Russell’s

    GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY

    James C Russell’s ‘Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation’ (GOEMC) is an excellent study on the evolution of Christianity from a predominantly Mediterranean religion to a northern European one. [1] The book has recently gained popularity on the internet right, and it’s now regarded as a “must read” in some circles.

    Russell is a conservative historian and theologian who authored another book condemning the role of organized Christianity in the facilitation of mass immigration into the United States and other Western countries. [2] Russell published GOEMC through the Oxford University Press in 1994.

    SUMMARY

    In GOEMC’s concluding chapter, Russell summarized his work’s twelve main points. [3]

    (1) Early Christianity emerged from an urban, heterogeneous, and low social capital society. German society at the time of first contact with Christianity was rural, homogeneous, and high social capital.

    (2) Early Christianity was “world rejecting” and “salvation” focused. In contrast, the pre-Christian German worldview was world accepting and socio-biological (ethnic and immediate).

    (3) The first Christian missionaries to Germany accommodated Christianity to the religopolitical and magicoreligous elements of the German worldview. [4]

    (4) Early efforts to convert Germans to Christ resulted in the reinterpretation of Christianity through the Germanic worldview.

    (5) Catholic Christianity’s political reliance on Germanic nations, like the Franks, led to the increased influence of their interpretation of Christianity over the Western Church.

    (6) Some Germanic nations attempted to preserve their unique ethnic identity and independence by adhering to Arianism rather than subjecting themselves to the outside power of Church hierarchy.

    (7) The “Christianization” of the Germans was very shallow until at least the reign of Charlemagne (768 – 814) because there was no catechumanate system or qualified teachers to finish instruction. The Church prioritized baptism over teaching because they thought the apocalypse was near. The German worldview was too strong to allow full Christianization.

    (8) Early missionaries to the Germans were as successful as they could have been. If they had not accommodated Christianity to the German worldview they probably would not have found any success.

    (9) The initial accommodation of Christianity to the German worldview laid the foundation for later indoctrination of Christian worldview and ethics.

    (10) Christian missionaries misrepresented the extent of disparity between the Germanic and Christian worldview when initially accommodating Christianity to a fresh German audience.

    (11) Early Christian accommodation left Germans with the impression that Jesus was one among many magicoreligous gods to include in their pantheon. New German converts did not possess doctrinal or ethical concerns.

    (12) Contributing factors to Christianity’s German spread included: the association of Christianity with Frankish political aims, an imagined causal association of Christianity with Roman grandeur, and a coincidental similarity between German myths and Christian beliefs, rituals, and symbols.

    This book is in the P reading list.

    Source: https://cocmillennial.blogspot.com/2016/11/germanization-of-early-medieval-christianity-review.html

    (Apologies. I don’t know who sent me this link to me)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-07-22 13:45:00 UTC

  • AUTO-ASSOCIATION AND THE BRIDGE TO RELIGION —“Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and

    AUTO-ASSOCIATION AND THE BRIDGE TO RELIGION

    —“Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are a kind of break away Indo-European Gothar. In the same light of Zoroaster and Buddha. But I don’t believe you can have “science” as religion as pure logic.”—Bjorn Asbrandsson

    You can, you just choose different heroes of history, and understand how the brain makes auto-associations.

    God: tiwaz/tyr, spiritual leadesr: odin-mind/thor-body, lawgiver: aristotle, statesman: aurelius, general: caesar, hero: alexander, warrior: Achilles; and debts to ancestors (spirits), nature (spirits), the universe(spirits) itself.

    That’s my pantheon.

    And my religion is painfully scientific (realism, naturalism, operationalism, auto-association) Its the auto-association that bridges science with what we call religion or faith.

    Took me a lot of work to figure that out.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-07-22 11:22:00 UTC