Name a need

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For one, the state-sponsored religion was abandoned... no small feat, given its reigning duration prior.

Outside of the US, you will not find a more overt example of western civilization than what is readily observed in any medium-sized city of Japan. From financial structure to business models to accouterments of leisure, Japan is a mini-US.

It may have been abandoned as a state-sponsored religion at the insistence of the occupiers, but Shintoism, Buddhism, Taoism and other Eastern religions remain overwhelmingly dominant in Japan. The number of Christians is tiny; the CIA factbook says only 0.7% of the population is Christian, while AsianInfo estimate is somewhat higher at 2.5%.

Even assuming any of the things stated are part of "western civilization" (a dubious assertion), there are significant differences in all of them between Japan and the US.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Man doesn't have a 'concept of God' like you say, but a concept of Himself.
He doesn't? That's news to me and a total contradiction to a very common thread of man's recorded history.

If I read you right, you are stating that God is simply the self elevated to the nth degree. Further, it appears you are saying that the self is either s ...[text shortened]... without. [/b]
What was it from without that inspired the need for justification?[/b]

First, I apologize for mischaracterizing your view of Creation.

Next, let's be clear about this so-called 'need' for God. What is the content of this 'need?' I take
the 'need for food' to be the brain's reaction to the body's need for the chemicals which allow the
individual cells to survive. It's a feedback loop: give the body those nutrients which goes to the
cells which send signals informing the brain that they're sated thus the need is met.

The 'need for air' is the same thing: the brain recognizes the decrease in oxygen in the blood and
autonomically reacts by inhaling in order to meet the requirements in order to keep the body's
cells alive.

What is the 'need for [god(s)/God]' precisely?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
First, I apologize for mischaracterizing your view of Creation.

Next, let's be clear about this so-called 'need' for God. What is the content of this 'need?' I take
the 'need for food' to be the brain's reaction to the body's need for the chemicals which allow the
individual cells to survive. It's a feedback loop: give the body those nutrients which ...[text shortened]... ody's
cells alive.

What is the 'need for [god(s)/God]' precisely?

Nemesio

No offense taken. Just didn't want another rabbit trail initiated.

From an earlier post:

Man has an historical noetic concept of the Numinous. Nothing within the physical world directly evidences the Numinous. Nonetheless, man has an equally-long historical record of repeated attribution of the physical world (in part or whole) to actions of the Numinous. Moreover, man has considered the Numinous as capable of personal relation with himself, and himself with the Numinous.

Juxtaposed with physical need, this one aspect of man's history appears to be the one recurring thread consistent throughout his quests, irrespective of sophistication... as though he is driven to the quest universally.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Man has an historical noetic concept of the Numinous. Nothing within the physical world directly evidences the Numinous. Nonetheless, man has an equally-long historical record of repeated attribution of the physical world (in part or whole) to actions of the Numinous. Moreover, man has considered the Numinous as capable of personal relation with himself, and himself with the Numinous.

I'm not sure I was clear. What exactly is the content of the 'need?' Man needs food because the
body requires nutrition. Finish this: Man needs the Numinous because the x needs y.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Outside of the US, you will not find a more overt example of western civilization than what is readily observed in any medium-sized city of Japan. From financial structure to business models to accouterments of leisure, Japan is a mini-US.

My understanding was that cars / cellphones / game consoles etc etc get exported to the US from Japan and not the other way around. The US is a mini-Japan. In fact Japan is well ahead of the US in terms of cellphone technology.
Most of the cars I have owned were Japanese and 99% of the toys my son has are Chinese. I must live in a mini-Asia.

If Japan is a perfect example of "western civilization" then why is it called "western" and not "eastern"?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm not sure I was clear. What exactly is the content of the 'need?' Man needs food because the
body requires nutrition. Finish this: Man needs the Numinous because the x needs y.

Nemesio

Finish this: Man needs the Numinous because the x needs y.
x= soul
y= relation with the Other

Originally posted by twhitehead
My understanding was that cars / cellphones / game consoles etc etc get exported to the US from Japan and not the other way around. The US is a mini-Japan. In fact Japan is well ahead of the US in terms of cellphone technology.
Most of the cars I have owned were Japanese and 99% of the toys my son has are Chinese. I must live in a mini-Asia.

If Japan ...[text shortened]... rfect example of "western civilization" then why is it called "western" and not "eastern"?

The US is a mini-Japan.
Good point. However, Japan models itself (in the arenas described) after the US, not the otherway around. That Japan has built better mousetraps with respect to particulars of both techonology and production notwithstanding, in no way diminishes western civilization's claim of 'starting the fire.'

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b] Finish this: Man needs the Numinous because the x needs y.
x= soul
y= relation with the Other[/b]

This doesn't quite answer the question. 'Man needs (a relationship with) the Numinous because his
soul needs a relation with the other' is sort of using the definition to define itself. That's sort of
like 'Man needs food because his body needs to eat.'

Further, unlike 'body,' the idea of a soul is similarly untestable. That is, atheists in this forum who
deny the existence of God and consequently to do not pursue a relationship with Him are showing
no outward signs of neediness (as a hungry person who needs food). You could argue that their
soul is dying or languishing or impoverished or whatever, but we cannot show that.

You can look at a man who has gone without water for 5 days and, knowing nothing else about
him,
can see that something is very wrong. You can look at a man who has gone 2 weeks without
food and, knowing nothing else about him, can see that something is very wrong. You cannot
look at an atheist who has been without God for 20 years and, knowing nothing else about him,
discern anything about him that you could about the life-long atheist.

So, if you would elaborate as to the content of the need, I think that would help.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You cannot
look at an atheist who has been without God for 20 years and, knowing nothing else about him,
discern anything about him that you could about the life-long atheist.

This sentence should read:

You cannot look at an atheist who has been without God for 20 years and, knowing nothing else
about him, discern anything about him that you could about the life-long theist.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This sentence should read:

You cannot look at an atheist who has been without God for 20 years and, knowing nothing else
about him, discern anything about him that you could about the life-long theist.

Nemesio

I see your point, relative to the physical yielding outward manifestations, to a degree. However, the same could be said regarding relationships or the long-term goals with which man becomes engaged.

The earlier formula truly is a stand-alone proposition, in that it is the one aspect of man's existence that (if God not be) has no basis in reality, no chance of fulfillment. I don't think that it necessarily uses the term to define itself, except as is required. By that, I mean that no other thing stands in close enough proximity to that ageless quest of man, save those mentioned realities already meeting their fulfillments.

Using the atheist as proof of one not needing God is self-serving and historically short-sighted. Theism is the default position, not atheism. Atheism itself necessarily depends upon the idea of God--- almost a type of left-handed compliment, really.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I see your point, relative to the physical yielding outward manifestations, to a degree. However, the same could be said regarding relationships or the long-term goals with which man becomes engaged.

The earlier formula truly is a stand-alone proposition, in that it is the one aspect of man's existence that (if God not be) has no basis in reality, no c ...[text shortened]... f necessarily depends upon the idea of God--- almost a type of left-handed compliment, really.

I'm not being sufficiently clear because I'm not clear what the need is.

If you ask the layperson, 'Why does man need to eat?' the answer will be, 'because his belly is
empty.' Whereas this is certainly true, it's not really a sufficient answer for getting at the root of
the 'why.' In order to answer, we must delve into nutrition, the digestive tract, how the body
delivers chemicals to sustain itself, and so on. Ultimately, we are just a multi-cellular organism,
doing the same thing en masse that our individual cells do in minutae. Similarly,
one can see what happens to the organism and its cells in the absence of sustenance.

Taking for granted for just a moment that this 'soul' of which you speak exists, how exactly
does the Numinous interact with it? How does it benefit from this interaction? What happens
when the soul does not receive what it 'needs?' That is, what precisely (and not generally) is
the content of the supposed 'need' for the Numinous? How is the theist who searches for and
finds the Numinous satiated and the atheist who cannot/will not find the Numinous deprived?

In the absence of food, the body dies. This process is observable and I'm sure you don't deny
it. In the absence of the Numinous, what do you assert happens?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm not being sufficiently clear because I'm not clear what the need is.

If you ask the layperson, 'Why does man need to eat?' the answer will be, 'because his belly is
empty.' Whereas this is certainly true, it's not really a sufficient answer for getting at the root of
the 'why.' In order to answer, we must delve into nutrition, the digestive trac y
it. In the absence of the Numinous, what do you assert happens?

Nemesio

I'm not being sufficiently clear because I'm not clear what the need is.
I don't know that a better phrase is available than what has already been given.

Similarly, one can see what happens to the organism and its cells in the absence of sustenance.
True. But just as in the situation of an absence of relations with other people or projects, man's unfulfilled quest for God doesn't necessarily register on a cellular level.

Man doesn't need food, per se, as much as his body needs what can be found within the food, namely, nutrition. Both food and nutrition exist--- a very tidy solution to an otherwise ugly proposition.

Man can certainly be said to need sex, although there are isolated cases in which such is not the case. Those exceptional people notwithstanding, the body will not necessarily register any measurable difference between the groups of people falling within the broad spectrum of sexual activity. Getting to the actual need would be impossible to isolate for this aspect of humanity.

So impossible, in fact, that sex is sometimes called instinctual and is often relegated to the non-specific category of "drive." Therefore, thinking in terms of isolation of primary causes I consider to be a fallacy of accident.

Taking for granted for just a moment that this 'soul' of which you speak exists, how exactly does the Numinous interact with it?
That's the big question, isn't it! I don't know that this question can be answered at this point of the argument. Suffice to say that something within the personality of man confers a personal nature to the Numinous--- projection or otherwise. I see man's base attributes as a simple awareness of the Other, without any concrete solution to bridging the gap.

How is the theist who searches for and finds the Numinous satiated and the atheist who cannot/will not find the Numinous deprived?
Cart before the horse, but assuming that the gap has been bridged, the first party presumably enjoys the association, whereas the second party lives life without such enjoyment.

In the absence of the Numinous, what do you assert happens?
Therein lies the rub. The point of the mental exercise in the first place was to consider any of man's 'problems' as being without solutions in reality. All of his needs can be met within the context of reality. If there be no God, man's imagination of Him is the most unusual aspect of the human experience. Ever.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I'm not being sufficiently clear because I'm not clear what the need is.
I don't know that a better phrase is available than what has already been given.

Similarly, one can see what happens to the organism and its cells in the absence of sustenance.
True. But just as in the situation of an absence of relations with other people or proje ...[text shortened]... imagination of Him is the most unusual aspect of the human experience. Ever.[/b]

If there be no God, man's imagination of Him is the most unusual aspect of the human experience. Ever.

Humanity’s imagination seems an unusual enough aspect of its consciousness. Somebody imagined a spirit in the tree, and— Humanity’s imagination is immensely creative; that is the point. If a particular (concept of) God is validated by imagination, then are they all.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]If there be no God, man's imagination of Him is the most unusual aspect of the human experience. Ever.

Humanity’s imagination seems an unusual enough aspect of its consciousness. Somebody imagined a spirit in the tree, and— Humanity’s imagination is immensely creative; that is the point. If a particular (concept of) God is validated by imagination, then are they all.[/b]

I think you've only offered half the equation!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think you've only offered half the equation!

Whereas I keep thinking that you offer the third half! 😉