Hi George,

By Biggies, I meant "big issues". My proper noun might have been misleading. (p.s. I can see my own retirement not so far away, so we probably have a common vocabulary.)

The steps you provided were helpful towards appreciating your understanding. I would agree, and have said so before, it is logical to conceive of God, before any particular god. Else, one is being led by scriputre, which could be imperfect.

"The “justifications” for e.g. Christianity’s “truths” ... psychology reside." - George

- The realm of the Pyche? Jung?

"My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything the like the traditional exists, our curiousity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We might be unappreciative of those gifts ... if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand,if such a traditional god does not exist,our curiosity and our intelligence are essential tools... In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and it is essential for the welfare of our species." - Carl Sagan

I see the Sagan cite as very balanced. A passion for knowledge sitting with the agenda of both science and religion. Yet, moving beyond a bounded unverse would require those attributes of faith not addressed by Sagan. The naive thesist would look to Genesis, the more open minded theist might look to Hartle-Harking - and beyond. I think we see this divion among our OLO friends, offering two views on the God of the Gaps as you imply. It also might mean theists should reterpret the role of their scriptures.

Squeers,

The Freud lecture was an excellent cite. Thank you.

Dear davidf,
thanks for clearing that up, and I'm glad your mind is not closed to Marx. Neither is my mind uncritical. I hope we can discuss his ideas more bye and bye. I have a very healthy respect for your perspective, and others here, not least because our elders have processed far more data than their juniors. The great challenge of course, for all ages, is maintaining a critical distance from that material they we are wont to lend coherence.

Dear George,
the great thing about Freud is that he never made psychology the "technology" he dreamed of, and he didn't pollute is prose with neologisms like the philosophers; he had a certain "paralax view" like the rest of us but managed to evade (somewhat) the etymological toils we tend to be enmeshed in. Its not so much Freud's scientific world-view, surely, as his commitment to rigour and evidence; his wariness of easy conclusions and his preparedness to rethink his position. Not that I say these are the matters that "challenge your position particularly"; its more that the whole is an anti-religious polemic that sets science up on high more for its humility than its Weltanschauung, and this is surely praiseworthy.
My position is simply that concern for life after death should be saved for life after death. Freud was committed to making a difference in this world (though he despaired at the end), and he refused to corrupt the evidence with leaps of faith. If there's a God running things then that's her affair and it's unfair to expect us to get it. But of course the only God we can conceive must needs be a fabulation.
Dear Oliver,
glad you enjoyed it.

squeers/quote..<<..My position/is simply/that concern..for life-after death/should be saved..for life_after_death.>>

saved for life/afer..death/seems overtly/complicated

perhaps/you could simplify/that..by saying..after death/
this would reflect/your true feelings..at any rate..[
going by your..'fabulation'..comment/see definition..at end]

<<..If there's a God/running things>>

no there isnt...a god/running things...
he made us/sustains..all of us..our lives..
then trusts..us/to live it/as..we chose

<<..it's unfair/to expect us..to get it.>>..of course

the trouble/being..if people would keep..an open mind/
the after-life..would be a lot easier/fot all
but the thing is/the after-life is full..of those/who REALLY believe the lie...that dead/..means dead

or worse..there are perfectly..good/people..sleeping away..eternity/
awaiting/the fabled day-of-judgment...

A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE...

never/the-less..they lie there sleeping...
waiting/for..some delusional..reserction/day...

yes/based on a fable..
and worse..a lie

<<But of course/the only God/we can conceive..
must needs be..a fabulation>>

many of the sleepers/..KNOW there is a god..
but they think..he is some judge..or tyrant..

little knowing..he is ALL LOVE..
all grace/..all mercy.

but because of..rule 1...
[ie people..MUST/have..free-will..]

THUS/they are let/to believe..as they chose

if they chose to think/they are dead..well so be it

if they chose to wait..for a judgment/day..
that shall NEVER come..so be it

im sick of..the fabulisations*
its time/people started truthing

enough of the fables
evolution..out of genus is a huge fable

but only a minour one/compared to judgment/day
or reserection/day...or dead..meaning morte..[dead]

<<<Fabulation/from wiki-pedia

In literary criticism,/the term fabulation.
.was popularized by Robert Scholes,/in his work..The Fabulators,

to describe the large/and growing class..
of mostly 20th century novels..

that are in a style/similar to magical realism,..and do not fit into/the traditional categories..of realism or..(novelistic.. romance.

They violate,..in a variety of ways,..standard novelistic expectations/..by drastic—and sometimes..highly successful—experiments/with subject matter,..form,..style,..temporal sequence,/and fusions of the everyday,fantastic,mythical,and..nightmarish,

in renderings that blur..traditional distinctions /between what is serious or trivial,..horrible or ludicrous,/tragic or comic.

To a large extent,..fabulism and postmodernism coincide..>>>

yes im aware to some my post could more be a fabulation

but im over sleepers/sleeping away eternity..needlessly

just hope to wake..a few/up now
save me doing it..later

Dear Squeers,

I am 84 years old and have read Marx and read about Marx. I have a well-informed opinion - not a closed mind. You have mentioned his critique of capitalism. I have no argument with that.

However, he definitely was against individual rights and thought limitation of the power of the state was unnecessary. The corpses piled up by the Marxist entities were as much a product of his class struggle theories and his view of the state as the corpses piled up by the Nazis were a product of racist theories and religious hatred.

He stated his goal in the Manifesto as the abolition of private property. I think private property is a very good thing. The US Constitution states in the fifth Amendment that a person should not 'be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." I think that is also a very good thing.

Some of his ideas are valid, but some of his ideas have resulted in great crimes. The exhaustive critique of capitalism does not make up for the crimes.

Missionaries tell me I really don't know Jesus. I know enough about Jesus. Others may tell me I really don't know Marx. I know enough about Marx. At this time I don't feel like discussing him further.

Right now I am concerned with separation of religion and state and have written two articles on the subject recently in OLO - one published today.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 and http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 are the addresses of those articles.

George,

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But in regards to the paragraph I was specifically referring to...

<<Yes, some theists are, and will remain, naive in their understanding of religion, the same as some atheists are, and will remain, naive in their rejection of religion. I have come to know both kinds, also on this OLO, and am glad I can make use of the fact that you are not one of them.>>

Firstly, it’s not yet possible for an atheist to be “naive in their rejection of religion”, because theists have not yet presented any good reason to believe that anything like what they’re proposing exists.

Secondly, I think it’s a bit harsh to say that some theists (creationists/literalists) are naive in their understanding of religion. Sophisticated Christianity has its faults too. There’s always been something I really didn’t like about the so-called “sophisticated” Christianity we see today, and it’s only been recently that I’ve been able to figure out why...

Sophisticated Christianity is, in a sense, more delusional and dishonest than the Biblical literalist’s interpretation, because they don’t really believe in any god at all.

What they’ve done is realised that the more literal interpretations of religion are fundamentally false. They’ve dismissed every notion god, but yet they still want to cling to the concept of god because they’re too cowardly to face the mental and emotional discomfort of the realisation that their intellects have lead them to.

So rather than face reality, they invent a new god and make him even more mysterious and absurd than the traditional versions of god before him. They place their new god beyond the scope of investigation as a protection mechanism since they’re too scared to take that final step in becoming atheists.

At the end of the day, all they’ve really done is succeeded in deluding themselves much more than the simpletons sitting the pews that they look down upon (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#172238, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#177846)

Literalists may appear on the surface to be more crazy than their “sophisticated” brethren, but I find them to be a lot more sincere.