THE LANGUAGE OF GOD? OR OF MEN? Sorry religious folk, but religious language is a language of men, not god – science and mathematics are the language of god. Religious law is the command of men, not god – natural law discovered by science is the law of god. Heaven is not created by god, but created by men – it is nature that we domesticate for our use that produces paradise in a universe that is hostile to us. Prophets were not speaking the word of god, but spinning stories by men for the control and manipulation of the ignorant. There is nothing found in the lies of the prophets that cannot be stated truthfully in the language of god: Math, Scientific Truth Natual Law, Physical Law, created by god, put into the minds of man through his discovery, and put to work by the hand of man because of that discovery. God wrote to us with reality. He does not speak to us. We can only read his writings in the fabric of the universe.
Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology
-
God Does Not Speak To Us. We Can Only Read His Writings In the Fabric of the Universe
THE LANGUAGE OF GOD? OR OF MEN? Sorry religious folk, but religious language is a language of men, not god – science and mathematics are the language of god. Religious law is the command of men, not god – natural law discovered by science is the law of god. Heaven is not created by god, but created by men – it is nature that we domesticate for our use that produces paradise in a universe that is hostile to us. Prophets were not speaking the word of god, but spinning stories by men for the control and manipulation of the ignorant. There is nothing found in the lies of the prophets that cannot be stated truthfully in the language of god: Math, Scientific Truth Natual Law, Physical Law, created by god, put into the minds of man through his discovery, and put to work by the hand of man because of that discovery. God wrote to us with reality. He does not speak to us. We can only read his writings in the fabric of the universe.
-
Why Do We Teach Religion? Cost, Breadth, and Error (But Myths are Better)
WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR. – Myth must only be envisioned and accepted. – Philosophy must be reasoned and understood to be envisioned and accepted. – Science must be measured, reasoned, and understood, to be envisioned and accepted.
1) Myths are easier to teach than measurement, calculation and reason. 2) Myths are false in that they are mere analogies, but having stood thd test of time they produce ‘true’ or ‘correspondent’ actions. 3) it is easy commit error with measurement, calculation, and reason – and hard in myth. Why? That which we convey by myth requires only analogy to experience. That which we must measure calculate and reason is de facto outside of our direct experience. In other words, there is more falsehood but less error in religion. Along the same lines: Why do we possess these forms of ethics: instinctual, imitated, mythical, virtue, rule, and outcome? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we possess fairy tails, myths and legends, history, literature, and philosophy? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we teach arithmetic, mathematics, geometry, calculus, non-euclidean geometry, and statistics? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we argue with one another using emotive approval and disapproval, morality, reason, rationalism, historical analogy, empirical evidence(direct), economic evidence(indirect), and ratio-operational-empirical argument? Answer? ABILITY -
Why Do We Teach Religion? Cost, Breadth, and Error (But Myths are Better)
WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR. – Myth must only be envisioned and accepted. – Philosophy must be reasoned and understood to be envisioned and accepted. – Science must be measured, reasoned, and understood, to be envisioned and accepted.
1) Myths are easier to teach than measurement, calculation and reason. 2) Myths are false in that they are mere analogies, but having stood thd test of time they produce ‘true’ or ‘correspondent’ actions. 3) it is easy commit error with measurement, calculation, and reason – and hard in myth. Why? That which we convey by myth requires only analogy to experience. That which we must measure calculate and reason is de facto outside of our direct experience. In other words, there is more falsehood but less error in religion. Along the same lines: Why do we possess these forms of ethics: instinctual, imitated, mythical, virtue, rule, and outcome? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we possess fairy tails, myths and legends, history, literature, and philosophy? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we teach arithmetic, mathematics, geometry, calculus, non-euclidean geometry, and statistics? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we argue with one another using emotive approval and disapproval, morality, reason, rationalism, historical analogy, empirical evidence(direct), economic evidence(indirect), and ratio-operational-empirical argument? Answer? ABILITY -
WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR. – Myth must only be envisioned and ac
WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR.
– Myth must only be envisioned and accepted.
– Philosophy must be reasoned and understood to be envisioned and accepted.
– Science must be measured, reasoned, and understood, to be envisioned and accepted.
1) Myths are easier to teach than measurement, calculation and reason.
2) Myths are false in that they are mere analogies, but having stood thd test of time they produce ‘true’ or ‘correspondent’ actions.
3) it is easy commit error with measurement, calculation, and reason – and hard in myth.
Why? That which we convey by myth requires only analogy to experience. That which we must measure calculate and reason is de facto outside of our direct experience.
In other words, there is more falsehood but less error in religion.
Along the same lines:
Why do we possess these forms of ethics:
instinctual, imitated, mythical, virtue, rule, and outcome?
Answer: Pedagogy.
Why do we possess fairy tails, myths and legends, history, literature, and philosophy?
Answer: Pedagogy.
Why do we teach arithmetic, mathematics, geometry, calculus, non-euclidean geometry, and statistics?
Answer: Pedagogy.
Why do we argue with one another using emotive approval and disapproval, morality, reason, rationalism, historical analogy, empirical evidence(direct), economic evidence(indirect), and ratio-operational-empirical argument?
Answer? ABILITY
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-12 09:19:00 UTC
-
Once we evolved sentience we required a fanciful positive incentive in order to
Once we evolved sentience we required a fanciful positive incentive in order to deal with the fact that the universe is hostile to us, does not care about us, and will exterminate us in a heartbeat if we cease the struggle.
And that our collective consciousnesses in each tribe constitute the god we speak to so that together we maintain the illusion that there is some ‘hope’ for us.
So some cultures look to the past(china, japan), some to the future(the west), and some to fantasy (Islam, Christianity, but most certainly Hinduism), and some to rejection of reality altogether (Buddhism).
That describes all possible extremes of present-avoidance available to man. I did not say that spirituality provided what is good for man. In fact, other than Stoicism, I think all cults in history are as destructive in some sense while constructive in another (But why does Christianity create prosperity?)
But they all provide the same escape from stresses in the present through membership in a virtual ‘pack’ or ‘herd’ that we can appeal to through direct subjective introspection of the patterns in that system of thought.
All of which is largely an external consequence of sentience without the ‘internet’ equivalent of constant communication from mind to mind that seems to occur between pack and herd animals.
Individual thought comes at a high price.
As an aside: stress is created by what psychologists call ‘neuroticism’. So some personalities feel this need greatly, and some personalities feel it very little.
If we combine this with intelligence, we see some people have a trust issue because of dunning Kruger effects (they cannot tell whether someone lies or not).
So if we combine intelligence vs neuroticism we get a pretty obvious way of graphing different populations and societies.
Westerners have higher creativity, and this seems to be correlated with the fact that we have higher neuroticism.
It may be that either higher demand for individualism higher neuroticism or the inverse.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 01:52:00 UTC
-
Most group evolutionary strategies (Protestantism included) are just excuses cas
Most group evolutionary strategies (Protestantism included) are just excuses cast in moral narrative.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 11:53:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772039749364281344
-
Most group evolutionary strategies (Protestantism included) are just excuses cas
Most group evolutionary strategies (Protestantism included) are just excuses cast in moral narrative.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 07:53:00 UTC
-
A ‘church’, allows us to join a family that may be better than ours. And if not,
A ‘church’, allows us to join a family that may be better than ours. And if not, to obtain recognition and incentive to retain ours, if it is better than others.
The Production of Generations:
Fitness and Training (fighting)(sports)
Education in work ethic and money.
Education in the raising of family (reproduction).
Education in the organization of production.
Education in the organization of the production of commons.
Education in fighting conversion, invasion, and war
– Requries Education in:
– reading, writing, grammar, logic, rhetoric, testimony, truth
– numbers, arithmetic, accounting, mathematics and algebra, geometry, calculus, statistics, models, and econometrics.
– the history of the family, of production of the commons and politics, of law, and of religion/conversion, invasion/migration, and war/conquest.
– the history of arts, and crafts, sciences, and thoughts.
Counsel (advice)
Banking, and intergenerational lending.
Title Registry (including births, marriages, and deaths)
Celebrations and Feasts.
Hospitaliers
Civic Emergency
Militia.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-02 04:15:00 UTC
-
Jesus was the first prophet to speak to us in the language of a female God
Jesus was the first prophet to speak to us in the language of a female God.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-31 05:43:00 UTC