No such thing as God.

[iconoclast]

Neither Extreme, While a apprecite that i've contracted the argument to a single sentance, 'the bible states that the earth is at the center of the universe' - you are correct to say no such direct statement is made. A fuller understanding of the geocentric views of the Catholic Church are to be found by putting 'geocentric' into Wikipedia - and these support the the asserton that Galielo was imprisoned and tortured - 'because his findings implied that the Bible was written by earlier generations of men of limited understanding – and was not the absolute the word of God and the absolute truth at all.'
Second, it sounds to me like you're demanding certainty - which is not realistic in terms of the theroy. The best we can do is reconcile the evidence in terms of a theoretical explanation. The more evidence that can be reconciled, the more valid the theory. Evolution occured, and religion occured - reconcile these facts. There are two ways to do so: 1, God caused evolution, or 2, man caused God.
third, rather like G.E.Moore - with his naturalistic fallacy, i don't think you allow for the scope of knowledge. psychology and sociology study scientifically the meanings and values held by people. further i would hold that 'function' is a value-neutral value that can be scientifically understood and achieved, particulalry where it relates to a human body, mind, society, an ecosystem.
fourth, just because nature is 'red in tooth and claw' doesn't mean that human society should be. we human beings have an exquisite intellectual appreciation of our existence - and couldn't function under such circumstances. ideas of social and psychological function, and ecological function can be said to underlie the 6 proposals of the constitution and these are quite justifiable scientifically.
please do come across as harsh if you want, i'm a tough cookie and convinced of the validity of these ideas. i'm less convinced of my ability to communicate that which i understand - and i think it's here that obviously intelleigent people such as your good self, find room for disagreement.

[iconoclast]

solace, it seems to me that the word 'communism' is in someway frightening or disgusting to you - inherently bad for no reason that requires rational justification. that's the very quality religion lends to ideology - so difficult to describe. thank you for demonstrating it.
socially, politically and economically there are a limited number of possible concepts - that such systems do resemble eacother. principally, i'm talking about what's necessary for humankind to survive as a species, employing these concepts, but there are significant differences - particulalrly obedience to science and intellectual meritocracy as a principle of political organisation.
economically though, i concede, the pursuit of wealth - to unjust and environmentally destructive ends, would not be considered a social good, and resources would be employed to provide broad material equality for everyone. it's the only way to enable environmental sustainability - and afterall, this is about species survival.

[Solace]

To the contrary, I realize full well that, theoretically speaking, communism is in most regards superior to capitalism. But communism has one fatal flaw, the same flaw that your proposal has, and that is that both assume that people are naturally generous. People aren't. People are greedy. That's why capitalism has had such success.

Unless and until you can change basic human nature, that is cause those who have to willingly share with those who do not, your proposal will not and cannot work. To be blunt, if your proposal is the only way to save the species, then we're doomed. You can blame the problem on religion, but religion is not the root of the problem, it's just a symptom. Greed is the problem, and shooting down religion won't kill greed.

[Didymos Thomas]

Iconoclast - I just wanted to thank you for the reintroduction of some of your ideas. This is good work you have done.

For example, if we accept that man is an evolutionary animal, then it’s reasonable to suppose that the concept of God occurred to man as an explanation of his existence.

This may be a reasonable supposition, depending on how much we know. It seems to me that God was, and is, among other things, an explanation of man's existence.

Once he came to realize the relationship between the artifact and the artificer – the made thing and the maker of the thing, man re-applied this conceptual scheme to reconcile perceptions of himself in the world, and asked ‘who made the world?’ and ‘who made me?’

The problem is that I do not think we can limit God-notions to an artifact-artificer relationship. This sort of relationship encompasses many God-notions, but is immediately dubious because of the duality inherent in the notion. And God-notions do not necessarily suffer from this sort of duality.

[Primitive man] applied the conceptual schemes available to him to infer the existence of a Great Artificer in the sky, a Creator God – the archetype of all subsequent God concepts.It’s impossible to overstate the significance of this idea – for it changed man’s understanding of reality, his conception of himself, and thus his behaviors and purposes. Where before it was impossible for hunter-gatherer tribes with hierarchies based on the threat and use of violence to join together, by employing the concept of God as an objective authority for law hunter-gatherer tribes could form multi-tribal and social groups without one tribe submitting directly to the will of the other. Instead, in the interests of providing better food, security and breeding opportunities than were provided by a hunter-gatherer way of life, they agreed to submit to the objective authority of God’s will.

In addition to the (directly) above concerns, is a general concern about over-generalization. All archetypes are oversimplifications; this archetype may be useful in some discourses, like discussing the development of early man especially where particular religious knowledge is not available. What I have to object to is the use of this archetype in any attempt to discredit the value of religion/belief in God, especially of modern man.

More of a nit-pick but worth pointing out, you say "they agreed to submit to the objective authority of God’s will". This seems misleading. More accurately, religious practice and observation allowed early man to form more complex social structures. Submitting to God's will, especially a supposed 'objective authority' seems to miss the point. Societies were becoming more complex, and religious observation gave man a common interest apparent in daily life. Religion allowed man to be closer to one another, to develop a cohesive social structure for the development of agriculture and cities.

The immediate consequence of this agreement was theology – the practice of inferring social laws (more or less favorable to some than others) from assertions about the nature of God.

I have to ask: where do those assertions about God come from, then? I think you have this backwards - assertions about God were developed to give help man understand the value of social laws and customs.

The Talmud, the Bible and the Koran – each one coming into existence as a refutation of the former, can therefore be understood as conceptual schemes reconciling perceptions of reality in different ways, the product of centuries of employing a social agreement to submit to God’s will to serve political and economic ends.

These texts were not refutations of one another. They often depend on one another.

Therefore, in terms of our theory, the pseudo-reality conjured into existence by understanding in these terms is the division of humankind into groups defined by one idea of the nature of God as opposed to another.

First, I do not think you have firmly established any religious doctrine/legend/parable/ect as a 'pseudo-reality'.

As for the division of mankind, I do not understand the focus on religion. Nationalism is equally divisive if abused. And that's where the real division rests, not in religion, but in nationalism. The history can be confusing, especially because religion and nationalism are often so close. But consider, nationalism splits religions at will (the Sunni and Shia split in Islam, for example), religions do not split nations so easily, and often religions span nations.

The Theory of Evolution proposed by Darwin answers the original question posed by primitive man, 35,000 years before. The concept of God occurred to explain the apparent artifact of man’s existence by supposing the existence of an artificer. The quality of an artifact has, lacking in a natural object, is the quality of design. The theory of Evolution explains the appearance of design in nature – showing how plants and animals have become so well suited to their various ways of life without reference to an unseen artificer, or even a grand design. Rather there is a simple mechanism at work – natural selection, whereby the fittest survive to breed and pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations.

Here we have an even greater problem. Darwin does answer many questions presented by primitive man so long ago. What Darwin fails to do is answer those questions in a way that is instructive - okay, we evolve, so what? How do we apply this to our daily lives? What is the moral lesson here? Now, I think we can extrapolate some from Darwin's work, but I think we will find those teachings to be very close to many religious teachings.

Darwin's evolution does not present any intellectual threat to religion, or belief in God. Of course, this ties back to my earlier objection about the oversimplification of God into a creator archetype.

Consider something for a moment. What if I called microwaves X-spirits? I have a great x-spirit shrine in my kitchen, cooks food so quickly! You might object 'spirits do not cook your food, microwaves do!'. But all I have done is change the words. We cannot criticize a world view because a different sort of language is used. If we take God as a catch phrase for things beyond the experience of man (and careful observation, like science, is definitely outside of that experience for most people, especially early man) then these criticisms of God amount to a disagreement about which words should be used. And if we are going to talk about usefulness to man, God-notions with mythologies which give moral lessons are probably more useful than statements about some natural mechanism like evolution. The story of Adam and Eve conveys moral meaning, Darwin's theory of evolution does not.

I think both are useful, Genesis and Darwin. Just useful in different ways.

Before Darwin, the idea of a Creator may have been the best explanation man had for his existence, but because the concept of God is merely inferred, and cannot be proven to have this or that characteristic, the power structures have always been free to make assertions about the nature of God as a means of taking advantage of an agreement the individual finds themselves born into.

Considering God as a scientific theory misses the point.

The pseudo-real divisions between human groups, defined by their conceptions of God, do not allow us to accept scientific knowledge, but require science be employed to create technologies of mass-murder, rather than, for instance, employing science, and applying the technology to provide humankind with a sustainable energy basis.

I do not follow. Humans are divided by religious belief, and therefore can only use science to destroy themselves? Humans are divided by many things, primarily (as mentioned earlier) by nationality. Science has always been used for destructive purposes, in the pursuit of personal gain and glory, something religion almost always advises against.

Meanwhile, science is being used to pursue sustainable energy. Science is already there. The problem (today) is multinational corporations with a bunch of money. These multinationals are protected by government, not religion.

There are other extinction threats with the same root cause, and the same remedy; namely climate change, over-population and environmental degradation, but explaining these threats as externalities of ideological understanding as a basis for action requires a much fuller explanation of human conceptual development – particularly, the religious roots of capitalism, omitted from this treatment for the sake of brevity, and so as not to overcomplicate the argument.

Religious roots of capitalism?

Again, you are placing religion in the center of ills, ills which exist because of the selfishness of some individuals. Even in the cases where religion is used as an excuse, this is not something to blame religion for - we should point towards the selfishness of the people abusing religion.

Any ideology can be dangerous when it is held fundamentally. Fundamentalism is always destructive. But religion is not necessarily pursued in such a manner, and therefore escapes your criticism. Again, addressing the selfishness of man would be more fruitful.

Just some things to consider before you plunge us into some global government where some selfish men can continue to abuse people, not just in a local area, but now the globe over. The problem is not religion, the problem is greed and hate.

[NeitherExtreme]

Hi again iconoclast.

About demanding certainty: I don't expect science to be able to create pure "objective" knowledge in order to be valid, since we don't have the ability to do that. But, sometimes science must move into an area of much less direct observation and much more speculation and "filling in the blanks" based on other assumtions, that is if they need to speak on such subjects at all. Pre-historic religious belief is certainly one of those areas. I realize that from a worldview dominated by scientific reasoning, it appears self-evident that humans created God. But, from other worldviews it is not so evident, even if they have accepted the general ideas of science's "history". So let's leave the doors open where we can, rather than continuing in humanity's long history of worldview wars.

Originally Posted by iconoclast

third, rather like G.E.Moore - with his naturalistic fallacy, i don't think you allow for the scope of knowledge. psychology and sociology study scientifically the meanings and values held by people. further i would hold that 'function' is a value-neutral value that can be scientifically understood and achieved, particulalry where it relates to a human body, mind, society, an ecosystem.

Again, though, this is really the study of what is, not why or what should be. That's the whole problem. We need something to answer the second two qustions before it's going to be valid for governing people.

Originally Posted by iconoclast

fourth, just because nature is 'red in tooth and claw' doesn't mean that human society should be. we human beings have an exquisite intellectual appreciation of our existence - and couldn't function under such circumstances. ideas of social and psychological function, and ecological function can be said to underlie the 6 proposals of the constitution and these are quite justifiable scientifically.

I agree that just because nature is something doesn't mean that is should be that way for humanity. But that's my morality and beliefs talking, not my scientific understanding. I have a bit of time, so I'll go back to your six proposals and pose some questions to help show what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by iconoclast

1) an honest and unqualified acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality.

If science is all there is, and there are no absolute moral authorities, then why should I give up my beliefs in favor of other's "scientific understanding"? What if I find them unfullfilling or offensive, why shouldn't I believe something else? And what about when there are conflicting ideas within science? Or will there be "science police" that make sure that only ideas that promote the allready accepted ideologies are introduced?

Originally Posted by iconoclast

2) a commitment to the continued survival of the human species.

What if the continued survival of the human species decreases the quality of life of the already living? Why should we concern ourselves over the future? Extinction is inevetible, why should I give up my life for some ultimately unatainable cause?

Originally Posted by iconoclast

3) a global hierarchy organized on the basis of intellectual meritocracy.

What if a person has an incredible IQ but is ideologially opposed to the "republic"? Do they get shunned, and who does this choosing?

Originally Posted by iconoclast

4) a commitment to human equality:
a) material equality within the bounds of environmental sustainability.
b) equality of opportunity.

How do you back this up with scientific reasoning? What if I have worked hard, planned ahead, saved well, and generally demonstrated that I am extremely well adapted to surviving in the current evironment? Why should my rewards be given to those who are less "adapted", how is that scientific?

Originally Posted by iconoclast

5) none shall bear arms but in the service of the global government.

What if I, knowing that humans are at least somewhat bent toward personal violence, believe that it is my duty and right to be able to protect myself and my family in the case of a personal attack using some kind of deadly weapon? How does science remove this right from me?

Originally Posted by iconoclast

6) a right to self replacement in two halves of two children subject to female consent.

Why should the weakest of the species have the same repoductive rate as the strongest, scientifically speaking? Isn't that a recipe for extinction? How does this not conflict with proposal #2?


All this is not to say that I think your ideas aren't worth considering. Aside from the fact that I don't see how they are "scientific" (which I don't think governing ideologies can be), I believe that they are well intentioned. My biggest problem with them is that I don't think they take into account human nature. To build a brick house, you need bricks. To build a perfect society you need perfect humans. But we don't have any of those. I've said many times that captialism is a terrible, self-serving, and unproductive economic system, but it might be the best we have. That's because we are terribly self-serving, so our economic system must account for that. For what it's worth, though, I don't think that individuals need to remain that way. I personally think that is partialy religion's job- to internally change people for the better. But I don't think that change can ever be imposed by external political or societal structures, even under the name of religion. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

solace, it seems to me that the word 'communism' is in someway frightening or disgusting to you - inherently bad for no reason that requires rational justification. that's the very quality religion lends to ideology - so difficult to describe. thank you for demonstrating it.
socially, politically and economically there are a limited number of possible concepts - that such systems do resemble eacother. principally, i'm talking about what's necessary for humankind to survive as a species, employing these concepts, but there are significant differences - particulalrly obedience to science and intellectual meritocracy as a principle of political organisation.
economically though, i concede, the pursuit of wealth - to unjust and environmentally destructive ends, would not be considered a social good, and resources would be employed to provide broad material equality for everyone. it's the only way to enable environmental sustainability - and afterall, this is about species survival.

I find it amazing and concurrently disappointing that individuals continue to consider the failed ideology of Communism and the continued inherent descent of Socialism as viable models of modern human societies. These ancient relics of mundane social thoughts are built on the proletariat concept of apathetic equality. These socially trite ideologies are internally flawed and subsequently engineered for catastrophic social failure, because of the inherent Human constraint that clearly reveals the absolute imperative of SELF-INTEREST, and the ancillary derivative (happiness-well being) that is developed and produced during the pursuit.

Iconoclast- Until you can reconcile the empirically provable constraint of self-interest, you will continue to indulge in fatally flawed models or ideologies detailing your idealistic concepts clearly consisting of self-serving parameters (unfortunately, you do not want to extend the same latitude to other individuals) that simply stand with the embarrassment and empirical truth of historical failure.

I will start another thread (in the near future) detailing the necessary proof that will unequivocally reveal the utter constraint of satisfying self-interest. I will use an emotionally charged analogy to prove my end. This revelation of understanding is quite simply the Head-water benchmark that all downstream issues are comprised of.

[Didymos Thomas]

These ancient relics of mundane social thoughts

Those 'ancient relics' which are more modern than liberal democracy.

[iconoclast]

Ruthless Logic,

I’m not proposing communism. I’m proposing global government constitutionally bound to accept scientific understanding, and employ science to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability. The government and society is an intellectual meritocracy – built upon the founded uniqueness of the human being: intellectual appreciation of reality. The government will come into being to address the extinction threats now bearing down upon us because of action in the course of ideological rationales – religious, political and economic: capitalist and communist alike.
Freed from the limits imposed by ideology, the first priorities will be to secure a possible future for humankind by providing a sustainable energy basis for human civilization, while addressing the vast inequalities in human welfare, (food, health, education and housing) that do not allow for environmental protection or population control.
Employing technology on the basis of scientifically conceived merit, the government will eradicate need, and continue to rationally employ resources to provide so well for human welfare that material considerations will be less and less at issue.
Thus, where your objection is to material equality, the emphasis is more correctly placed upon ‘within the bounds of environmental sustainability.’ Within this scientifically conceived limit, I assume you will want the maximum level of material welfare possible – and given your emphasis on self-interest, must rationally assume the same of everyone else. This is where equality enters into the argument – not as a moral principle of political justification, but given the self-interest of the individual, as the consequence of a distribution of resources rational to the end of securing human survival.
I don’t doubt for a moment that you can demonstrate the inevitability of self-interest, probably with reference to the prisoner’s dilemma. But if that were how things really are, society wouldn’t be possible. In society, we communicate and agree to limit and direct the pursuit of self-interest. The prisoner’s dilemma doesn’t allow for communication, thereby creating the vacuum that expands self-interest. But can you support an idea of self-interest so inflated as to be placed, not merely above the self-interest of another, but above the species interest in survival?
If you argue for that then you’re a criminal – able to communicate, but refusing to limit and direct self-interest, a criminal so viscous that faced with the prisoner’s dilemma, quite able to communicate with your co-accused, you’d conspire against your fellow man to see him take the fall. If that’s how things really are, for he would do the same, then we are doomed, and deserve to be.

[Aedes]

Iconoclast,

What would this government do about the gross disparities within and between local regions in the world? How would it handle unique regional differences that might demand different resources? How would it balance the needs of disparate places and billions of people in which there are finite resources and many local constituencies?

These problems may have scientific solutions at the local level. But at the global level you cannot weigh, for example, the pressing needs of Romania versus Bolivia versus Vanuatu versus Equitorial Guinea. I know these national boundaries are constructs, but that's besides the point, they delimit local areas.

[iconoclast]

Aedes, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking how material equality would be achieved practically then something between a basket of equivalent goods and equal carbon cost. if you're asking how global government would address the specific needs of specific areas then an aswer will require a great deal of prepapration. I can give you a outline of the general plan tomorrow, but emphesize general. at this stage, any more would be premature. iconoclast.