>>The insertion of God into the process adds precisely nothing, and subtracts precisely nothing.<<

Not quite: it adds another layer of complexity which William of Ockham would have us do without. Who's to say William isn't more sage than the sages of old who dreamt up the idea of god?

>>We ARE already aware of God - there is nothing else to be aware of. Unfortunately our awareness is distorted (so we perceive existence instead). Progress is made as we remove the distortions.<<

So what do you perceive if it's not existence? If you do perceive existence doesn't that suggest that your 'awareness' is 'distorted' as everyone else's?

>>A sensitive observer who lacks the same distortions, may be able to detect in others when their distortions are removed.<<

Then again they may not. They may just be guessing - or making sh!t up.

>>Sure, but they still come closer to the bus-stop (even if they don't know about it).<<

Unless the bus-stop doesn't exist. If there is no bus-stop they can't come any closer to it.

Cheers,

Tony

"Unless the bus-stop doesn't exist. If there is no bus-stop they can't come any closer to it."

This is possible, Grasshopper... though if the bus-stop exists but there is no bus service are they still routed ?

Tony Lavis,

“Whatever Einstein was he wasn't an atheist. I tend to agree with Einstein: I prefer Spinozan pantheism to atheism and conventional theism but I can never really be certain that Spinoza was right and that Dawkins and Joseph Smith, Confucius, Mohammed etc. were wrong.”

Can you point out where I said Einstein considered himself an atheist? There has been a huge amount of discussion and study on the subject of Einstein’s religious views. That he believed in the god of Spinoza is very telling. That ‘god’ is nature.

Self confessed gnosticism is only part of the story. I thought you would have twigged to that.

Einstein was very loose with the language about god and religious concepts but people tend to accept that looseness doesn't exist when they come across something that supports a particular view. There is also the problem of not wanting to upset religious sensibilities. In the time he lived, that was important.

As I said, everyone is philosophically agnostic. Einstein’s self-proclaimed agnosticism certainly did not have anything to do with any of the popular gods of the time and that includes the Christian version.

Maybe if Einstein was alive today, because the subject of religion has gained a greater importance since 9/11 he would explain his views more precisely. I’d be surprised if he didn't. He would most likely state he, like most atheists including Richard Dawkins, would point out he is philosophically an agnostic and a practical atheist.

And of course, it doesn't matter if Einstein believed the world is held up by an infinite regression of turtles. Einstein's metaphysical beliefs shouldn't be accepted to a greater extent than anyone else's.

David

Yuyutsu,

“As for myself, I don't possess special knowledge about existence. If one is interested to know about existence, then I recommend them the best available tool - science, and science tells us that no gods exist.”

Science is non-committal and has nothing to say about the existence of gods but you seem to be saying none exist. If none exist, then ‘God’ being one of them, doesn't exist either.

And this:

“That was just my 3rd example following watching-nature and listening-to-music. I could have kept adding all forms of art (watching and creating), long runs, mathematics, and a host of other methods that may bring certain people closer to God.”

And then you explain how to get closer to the non-existent ‘God’.

I think I might leave it here.

David

Dear Tony,

<<Not quite: it adds another layer of complexity which William of Ockham would have us do without.>>

Care to read my answer to Pericles in the context I've written it?

<<So what do you perceive if it's not existence? If you do perceive existence doesn't that suggest that your 'awareness' is 'distorted' as everyone else's?>>

I have no idea, perception doesn't come into it. Awareness of my true identity as God does not rely on perception.

Naturally, the senses of this human whom I/God used to mistakenly call "I" are likely to continue sending chemo-electric signals to the brain of that human and that human is still likely to respond, but what has that to do with Me?

<<Then again they may not. They may just be guessing - or making sh!t up.>>

Then tough luck. Would your only reason to do anything in life be to impress others?

<<Unless the bus-stop doesn't exist.>>

That would make no difference when you ARE the bus-stop.

Dear David,

<<Science is non-committal and has nothing to say about the existence of gods but you seem to be saying none exist. If none exist, then ‘God’ being one of them, doesn't exist either>>

I stand corrected, science has not proved (yet?) that none of those little gods exists (but I don't hold my breath about finding one some 10000 light-years away).

Although it's true that God does not exist either, it does not follow as a conclusion since God is not one of "them".

Unlike those little ones, God can never ever, by any chance, be detected by any scientific method - because unlike those little ones, God cannot logically exist.
Claiming that He does exist (which sadly many theists do) is an insult to His holy name.

Even if one leaves aside the primitiveness and improbabilty of a deity, the problem with any any powerful institution is the framework in which it's authority can be abused.

That is just one of the problems with religion. The idea of providing a moral framework to establish and maintain ethics and values falls flat if the Churches themselves leave a lot to be desired in their abuse of power particularly in the treatment of young and innocent lives.

What was once thought to be obtained only through religion eg. manners, treating others with respect, loving each other as fellow humans etc can be done through education ostensibly from parents and then reinforced through modelling behaviours at school.

It sounds like social engineering and I suppose it is but primarily good behaviour comes from imitating those around you at home, at school, in public and behaviour of the media and public figures. That is the best form of education on values. Formalising these things as lessons may work for the very young but later it has to be imitated, so adults have a role to play here in reflecting those values in their own behaviour.

A hard task nowadays with manners falling behind other factors particularly in the media where titillation and scandal are the norm and consumers are also to blame for buying it and thus reinforcing the market value.