1. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Oct '07 17:16
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    As I said, clearly define 'need,' and then we can show how either God doesn't fit into the picture, or
    that there are many needs that go unfulfilled.

    Nemesio
    As I said, clearly define 'need,'
    That which is cumpulsory for man's existence, a drive either of his pyshce or his body's physical pain. Already used are the drives for food, liquid and sex, so I don't know that using them again will further flesh the concept out.

    ...and then we can show how either God doesn't fit into the picture...
    Actually, the question is about why God is in the picture, so the presumption is premature.

    ... that there are many needs that go unfulfilled.
    To be sure, once we fuzzy-up the borders and start calling any and all whims of the psyche needs (sans the undergirding principles and/or ultimate drives), we should be able to work backwards and make all of them disappear. But that's not really the point, is it?

    Further, unfulfilled or not, just the fact that needs exist at least suggests their possible fulfillment. In looking at the whole of man's accepted needs finding their fulfillment in things that actually exist, that suggestion smells an awful lot like a demand.

    In a universe bound by laws, to not have an actual outside fulfillment of the surety of God's existence would be akin to bracketing an 'i' or a 'b' when doing so yields nothing... or, worse, bracketing a '/i' or a '/b' when doing so has no meaning whatsoever.
  2. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    03 Oct '07 21:32
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]But I think we are capable of asking questions that are incapable of any (meaningful) answer, and then making up answers, that we assume are meaningful.

    Example: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “Why” questions seem notorious in this regard.

    I don't know that the 'why' questions can be entertained until the others are at least giv ...[text shortened]... estion that I entertain... [/b]
    Sometimes our learning keeps us from true knowledge.[/b]
    Sometimes our learning keeps us from true knowledge.

    The path to true knowledge is via ignorance? We should learn less in order to know the truth?

    The only case in which I can perhaps see what you might be getting at here is if someone is held within the bounds of a particular paradigm or worldview, and is unable or unwilling to step outside those bounds in order to examine the possibilities from a different perspective... What you might call “due diligence.” Is that what you’re getting at?
  3. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    04 Oct '07 01:53
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [b]Sometimes our learning keeps us from true knowledge.

    The path to true knowledge is via ignorance? We should learn less in order to know the truth?

    The only case in which I can perhaps see what you might be getting at here is if someone is held within the bounds of a particular paradigm or worldview, and is unable or unwilling to step outside th ...[text shortened]... different perspective... What you might call “due diligence.” Is that what you’re getting at?[/b]
    LATE EDIT:

    Then again, it struck me that you might be referring to gnosis, not episteme...?
  4. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    04 Oct '07 04:07
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    That which is cumpulsory for man's existence, a drive either of his pyshce or his body's physical pain. Already used are the drives for food, liquid and sex, so I don't know that using them again will further flesh the concept out.

    Okay. We're on the same page. My presumption (that 'God' is a need) was indeed premature.

    To be sure, once we fuzzy-up the borders and start calling any and all whims of the psyche needs (sans the undergirding principles and/or ultimate drives), we should be able to work backwards and make all of them disappear. But that's not really the point, is it?

    I'm totally on board now. I was concerned that you were fuzzying the borders. You're not. My
    misunderstanding.

    In that case, I think that the 'need' that 'God' fulfills is the 'need to know.' Humankind is curious
    and longs to fill the voids with something. This is why there is a preponderance of aetological
    myths; when groups of humans wondered about what the sun was, the Egyptians posited that Ra
    was pushing a boat across the sky, the Greeks thought it was Helios' fiery chariot, the Navajo's
    believe that Johona'ai carries 'so' (the sun) on his back and stores it in his dwelling at night, and so
    on.

    Religions give answers to a variety of practical questions -- where spiders come from, why does the moon
    eclipse, what causes earthquakes -- as well as metaphysical ones -- why are we here, what is right
    and wrong, should I help or hinder or ignore a certain effort or individual, is there something after
    this life. It wasn't about whether the answers were right or even made an ounce of sense -- they
    were answers. Most people accepted them, a few rejected them and sought to answer them for
    themselves.

    So, that's the 'need' in question: the need to satisfy curiosity. Jehovah fills it; Odin, Zeus and Marduk
    and a zillion others filled it at other points. Others present and past remained unconvinced with the
    answers offered by these solutions and find other ways of filling the 'need.'

    In a universe bound by laws, to not have an actual outside fulfillment of the surety of God's existence would be akin to bracketing an 'i' or a 'b' when doing so yields nothing... or, worse, bracketing a '/i' or a '/b' when doing so has no meaning whatsoever.

    You lost me with this analogy.

    Nemesio
  5. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    04 Oct '07 04:521 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]That which is cumpulsory for man's existence, a drive either of his pyshce or his body's physical pain. Already used are the drives for food, liquid and sex, so I don't know that using them again will further flesh the concept out.


    Okay. We're on the same page. My presumption (that 'God' is a need) was inde whatsoever.[/b]

    You lost me with this analogy.

    Nemesio[/b]
    My only comment here is that I still think that our ancestors often knew that their mythological answers were just that; when they told mythic and symbolic stories, they knew they were telling stories. Our earliest written sources (after the stage where writing was just used for basic accounting tasks) seem to show sufficient literary depth and style as to merit the word “literature.” I find it difficult to believe that the author of the Yahwist (“J” ) narrative thought s/he was writing straight history, albeit with god(s).

    I would suspect that the same goes for the pre-literate oral traditions. (Did the Norse really think that the first man was licked out of the ice by a primordial cow?)

    This is not to say that people were not superstitious. That they did not assign intentionality to the forces of nature. But that does not mean that they were not aware of the sometimes fanciful speculations they made about the attributes of such forces. Some people undoubtedly believed them as fact; others undoubtedly did not. These people did not have our scientific knowledge (or the wherewithal to attain it), but they were just as bright; they had the same range of intelligence.

    I am reminded of something Heidegger said (quoting with agreement someone else): that the ancient Greeks had a mythology but no theology.

    I think the minimal safe assumption is that (a) as many people took the stories literally then as today, and as many did not; and (b) that many understood the symbolic/archetypal import of their mythology: in a sense, taking them as “real but not factual”.

    Personally, I go further in that I suspect moderns have largely forgotten how to read myth, so that more people now think the ancient stories were intended literally—often believing their own and scoffing at everyone else’s. Or believeing none and scoffing at all.

    ______________________________________

    This does not really contradict your hypothesis—I might just replace the “need to know” with the “need to provide an answer”, even if they understood those story-answers symbolically and allegorically.

    As Bosse De Nage put it (roughly): They may have understood (what we would call) the mythical nature of their stories; nevertheless they lived into their myths. They lived mythically in the same way that a modern might live philosophically. In that sense, one might speak of “realized mythology.”
  6. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    04 Oct '07 15:071 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Sometimes our learning keeps us from true knowledge.

    The path to true knowledge is via ignorance? We should learn less in order to know the truth?

    The only case in which I can perhaps see what you might be getting at here is if someone is held within the bounds of a particular paradigm or worldview, and is unable or unwilling to step outside th different perspective... What you might call “due diligence.” Is that what you’re getting at?[/b]
    The path to true knowledge is via ignorance?
    No, that was a referrence to the man you quoted. In leaving the path of faith in God's guidance and pursuing the path of faith in man's quest for knowledge, Teilhard 'burned the picture for the ashes,' as it were.

    We should learn less in order to know the truth?
    No. We should always want to learn, but we should always have a standard by which we determine the value of such learning. For instance, growing contemporary thought is to filter all understanding through the so-called scientific method. Of course, there is nothing anywhere near consensus respecting which scientific method, but--- according to some--- nothing can be known outside of that method. The essence is: if it cannot be measured, it cannot be known. How ridiculously short-sighted!

    ... or, as you said quite succinctly:
    ... is if someone is held within the bounds of a particular paradigm or worldview, and is unable or unwilling to step outside those bounds in order to examine the possibilities from a different perspective... What you might call “due diligence.” Is that what you’re getting at?
  7. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    04 Oct '07 15:23
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    That which is cumpulsory for man's existence, a drive either of his pyshce or his body's physical pain. Already used are the drives for food, liquid and sex, so I don't know that using them again will further flesh the concept out.


    Okay. We're on the same page. My presumption (that 'God' is a need) was indeed ...[text shortened]... whatsoever.[/b]

    You lost me with this analogy.

    Nemesio[/b]
    Others present and past remained unconvinced with the
    answers offered by these solutions and find other ways of filling the 'need.'

    Here again, however, are the symptoms without the cause. All of man's needs are met with external realities and--- if I'm reading you right--- yet his need of a theory of everything (for lack of a better substitionary phrase for the question of God) appears to be emanating from within. According to that thinking, the formula would fall out something like this:

    Food (real) is for his belly (pain).
    Water (real) is for his thrist (pain).
    Sex (real scarce) is for his loins (pain).
    God (imagined) is for his curiosity (amusement).

    You lost me with this analogy.
    Not purposely esoteric. I was simply (albeit poorly) trying to use rules governing the appearance of type on this site (embolden and italicize) to draw a parallel for the formula. Whereas a bracketed 'b' begins emboldening the type which follows and a braketed '/b' ends the same, 'hunger' starts the rule and 'food' ends the same. All of man's needs follow the same format: a real need is satisfied with a real solution. The same seems to justify man's real need for God.
  8. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    04 Oct '07 15:39
    Originally posted by vistesd
    My only comment here is that I still think that our ancestors often knew that their mythological answers were just that; when they told mythic and symbolic stories, they knew they were telling stories. Our earliest written sources (after the stage where writing was just used for basic accounting tasks) seem to show sufficient literary depth and style as to ...[text shortened]... at a modern might live philosophically. In that sense, one might speak of “realized mythology.”
    (Did the Norse really think that the first man was licked out of the ice by a primordial cow?)
    I think history shows us something entirely different than what you think it does in this area. Even to recent times, we have found people who, after being cut-off from any outside influence for several generations, have denegrated to firm beliefs in superstitious 'nature is god' types of theology.

    Native (!) Americans who migrated from Eurasia eventually lost any influence of monotheism and gradually adopted a type of nature-worship, for instance. This is repeated where ever God is eschewed and nature is exalted: man denegrates to superstition and ignorance.
  9. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    04 Oct '07 15:461 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    There's certainly no necessary connection between the requirement of satisfaction for a desire and the existence of an external satisfier. That's like saying because I need sex there must be women. It might be true both that I need sex and that there are women, but it's certainly not a valid argument.
    I think what Lewis was driving at is that for every desire there is a corresponding reality (lust-woman , hunger-food , ambition- money etc etc) His argument was then that if we have a desire for God then it may be the only desire we have that has no external corresponding reality. That is of course if God does not exist.

    To put it more simply he was saying if there is no God then why do we desire him?

    OR

    The fact that we desire God shows that there is a good chance there is a God.

    The interesting question here is if we imagine a universe without food , how likely is it that we would feel hunger? CS Lewis also said that if the world was without light we would not know it was dark , but then would wouldn't have eyes either.
  10. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    04 Oct '07 19:39
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    I think what Lewis was driving at is that for every desire there is a corresponding reality (lust-woman , hunger-food , ambition- money etc etc) His argument was then that if we have a desire for God then it may be the only desire we have that has no external corresponding reality. That is of course if God does not exist.

    To put it more simply he ...[text shortened]... rld was without light we would not know it was dark , but then would wouldn't have eyes either.
    That's retarded, I have a desire for women with wings and hair made of candy floss, but we'd both agree they don't exist. Even if we ignore that flaw in his argument, he's still severely troubled with proving that there is a desire for god in the first place. Having read 'The Screwtape Letters' and Narnia etc. I expected more from Lewis, this sounds like bunk to me.
  11. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    05 Oct '07 05:18
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Along the lines of thought made popular by C.S. Lewis, has anyone satisfactorily responded to his contention that all needs are exteriorly-driven?
    Reading through this thread, I can't really figure out exactly what argument you are attributing to Lewis. Could you please simply state the premises and conclusion?
  12. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    05 Oct '07 06:26
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b](Did the Norse really think that the first man was licked out of the ice by a primordial cow?)
    I think history shows us something entirely different than what you think it does in this area. Even to recent times, we have found people who, after being cut-off from any outside influence for several generations, have denegrated to firm beliefs in sup ...[text shortened]... here ever God is eschewed and nature is exalted: man denegrates to superstition and ignorance.[/b]
    Actually, it wouldn't be true to say that Native Americans were pantheists. My ancestors worshiped the "Great Spirit" or, in the Lakota tongue, "Wakan Tanka." The Great Spirit was always held to be (and still is by some) a personal God; all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. In fact, Wakan Tanka is not much different than the monotheistic God of other religions.

    I don't think it is a rule of thumb necessarily that people "cut off" from any outside influence will degenerate into superstition and ignorance. The history of Israel, for instance, is wrought with tales of backsliding and rebellion, idol worship and spiritual adulteries of all kinds - all of which occurred under the watchful eye of Jehovah and with a tradition of Mosaic law.

    If God is God, and if He created all men, then He is accessible to all people who wonder about the world in which we live and who dream about another world yet to come. Similarly, all men have it in them to degenerate into superstition and ignorance as well, regardless of being handed the oracles of God.

    In order to give you a flavor of what spiritual profundity can be found in Native cultures, here are some relevant quotes from Chief Sitting Bull:

    "Each man is good in the sight of the Great Spirit... God made me an Indian. He put in your heart certain wishes and plans; in my heart, he put other different desires. I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. I am here by the will of the Great Spirit, and by his will I am chief. I know the Great Spirit is looking down upon me from above, and will hear what I say... It is through this mysterious power that we too have our being, and we therefore yield to our neighbors, even to our animal neighbors, the same right as ourselves to inhabit this vast land... What treaty that the whites have kept has the red man broken? Not one. What white man has ever seen me drunk? Who has ever come to me hungry and left me unfed? Who has seen me beat my wives or abuse my children? What law have I broken? What white woman, however lonely, was ever captive or insulted by me? Yet they say I am a bad Indian. You think I am a fool, but you are a greater fool than I am."

    Forgive me if this is off topic, but I needed to add my two cents here.
  13. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    05 Oct '07 06:32
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Food (real) is for his belly (pain).
    Water (real) is for his thrist (pain).
    Sex (real scarce) is for his loins (pain).
    God (imagined) is for his curiosity (amusement).
    Well, you've couched it differently than I did.

    Food satisfies hunger.
    Water satisfies thirst.
    Sex satisfies loins.
    Answers satisfy curiosity.

    I don't know about you, but curiosity is hardly an amusement for me. Yes, there are some
    things about which we can be dimmly curious, like how they get the filling in the twinkies. But
    for many people (myself included) it can be agonizing to not have the answer to a given problem.
    And, naturally, the bigger the problem (how did we get here, what are our duties, what happens
    when we die), the greater the agony.

    Myths served to sate that pain.

    Nemesio
  14. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    05 Oct '07 06:32
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Actually, it wouldn't be true to say that Native Americans were pantheists. My ancestors worshiped the "Great Spirit" or, in the Lakota tongue, "Wakan Tanka." The Great Spirit was always held to be (and still is by some) a personal God; all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. In fact, Wakan Tanka is not much different than the monothei ...[text shortened]... than I am."

    Forgive me if this is off topic, but I needed to add my two cents here.
    Thank you.
  15. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    05 Oct '07 06:43
    Originally posted by vistesd
    My only comment here is that I still think that our ancestors often knew that their mythological answers were just that; when they told mythic and symbolic stories, they knew they were telling stories.
    I'm not sure I agree with this. Perhaps the initial storyteller was simply 'telling stories' (albeit
    pregnant with meaning), but I'd be willing to be that after a generation or two, the successful
    'stories' became sources of identity, ways to establish and confirm one's peers in one's propinquity
    group, and thus something which took on a much greater significance, as people have been fighting
    about religion/culture for millenia.

    I think Jonathan Swift's satirical dispute between the Lilliputians and the Blefuscudans (i.e.,
    upon which side of the egg should an individual consume first) attests to an ingrained truth:
    people become desparately and violently passionate about those things which they hold as
    ontologically dear. I see no reason to believe that his is a new trait amongst humans. I'm
    pretty sure that Thorg killed Blerg when the latter believed that the moon was carried in a
    boat rather than on the back of a bear.

    Nemesio
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree