Not The Higgs After All?

[shunyadragon]

And why would your belief in the matter have more substantive weight than that which you believe to be a delusion?

I feel you are really over reaching and overstating the intent of my statement in my dialogue with robrecht. Actually the subject of another thread, but robrecht asked the questions and I was attempting to answer them.

Why is it necessarily true that God does not interact directly with His creation?

I believe God does interact [ directly or indirectly?] with his Creation. My question to you would be 'Why is it necessarily true that God ONLY interacted directly with God's Creation through the Judeo/Christian Revelation?'

The scripture teaches that He does, and the point of Christ and the Resurrection is to make such interaction possible. So IF Christ is who the Bible teaches He is, then one necessarily SHOULD believe God interacts with us directly and personally. To believe anything else while believing Christ is who scripture teaches He is would be a contradiction.

OK, that is what you believe. My comment did not address this issue. but that only begins the discussion. You leapt too far based on my one statement.

So to call such belief a delusion necessarily places a higher truth value on what you believe to be true than what any Christian believes to be true, and asserts your belief system as necessarily closer to objective truth than the Christian alternative.

What I called a delusion was the claim to know God on a first name basis, and presented the Baha'i view, supported by a Jewish reference, that the name of God is not known. That is all, and not as far as you are carrying the discussion.

Like many ancient religious paradigms your claim that there is no other objective truth then yours. Baha'i Faith does not make that claim. I believe by the evidence the Baha'i Revelation is more objective in terms of the nature of our more universal spiritual and physical reality then the ancient paradigms. To support this just look at the scripture and the beliefs that result concerning the reality of our world. Over 50% of the Christians in the USA believe that the Creation story of the Bible is literally true, .

Is it your intent to say that - that Christian faith is a delusion but Bahá'í is not?

No, but start a thread, and we will discuss the many problems of ancient paradigms where exclusive doctrines and dogmas are based on ancient literature. The main problem is that Christianity considers ALL other religions of the world as delusions. evil, condemned or otherwise false conspiracies.

[jordanriver]

I feel you are really over reaching and overstating the intent of my statement in my dialogue with robrecht. Actually the subject of another thread, but robrecht asked the questions and I was attempting to answer them.



I believe God does interact [ directly or indirectly?] with his Creation. My question to you would be 'Why is it necessarily true that God ONLY interacted directly with God's Creation through the Judeo/Christian Revelation?'



OK, that is what you believe. My comment did not address this issue. but that only begins the discussion. You leapt too far based on my one statement.



What I called a delusion was the claim to know God on a first name basis, and presented the Baha'i view, supported by a Jewish reference, that the name of God is not known. That is all, and not as far as you are carrying the discussion.

Like many ancient religious paradigms your claim that there is no other objective truth then yours. Baha'i Faith does not make that claim. I believe by the evidence the Baha'i Revelation is more objective in terms of the nature of our more universal spiritual and physical reality then the ancient paradigms. To support this just look at the scripture and the beliefs that result concerning the reality of our world. Over 50% of the Christians in the USA believe that the Creation story of the Bible is literally true, .



No, but start a thread, and we will discuss the many problems of ancient paradigms where exclusive doctrines and dogmas are based on ancient literature. The main problem is that Christianity considers ALL other religions of the world as delusions. evil, condemned or otherwise false conspiracies.

I have included YOUR WHOLE POST here, to be careful not to take you out of context.

I am not responding to everything on YOUR WHOLE POST here,

I am only going to comment on the last part of YOUR WHOLE POST where you said "...The main problem is that Christianity considers ALL other religions of the world as delusions. evil, condemned or otherwise false conspiracies..."

ok, here is my comment to that last sentence of your post:

no, shunyadragon, not necessarily "as delusions. evil, condemned or otherwise false conspiracies"

Based on Scripture, I would say "ignorance"

because,

from Acts 17:30-31
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

So, now, I believe it is a Christian's duty to become a missionary, whether its in foreign lands, or at home.
and to help financially support missionaries.

edited to add
just in case including YOUR WHOLE POST is not enough, it is here in POST 46 which shows THE CONTEXT of your post which was replies to oxmixmudd

[phank]

I think you missed the point of my reply. I was trying to point out he was implicitly assuming the superiority of his point of view without an objective means of supporting that conclusion.

Do I have an objective means of evaluating the truth of a religious system?
Not entirely.

I would say, not at all.

If one accepts that the moral imperitives that drive our legal system produce a good and fair society, then one can use that as a guide.

I would say that since humans as a species have a human nature (that is, similarly constructed brains), there can be a consistent and workable set of rules which facilitate human society.

Most of us recognize a truly compassionate and kind person as better than a selfish self serving one.

Yes, abstractly I think this is true. But most of us also recognize that human society is not a pure-strategy game, and sometimes (and actually quite often) mixing strategies works for the best for some people. Otherwise, why would anyone vote Republican?

But for the most part it goes like this. If one is seeking to be self fulfilled and free to pursue ones passions without regard for its impact on others, then one is going to seek to find reasons to reject what interferes with that end.

Perhaps outside of any social context. But even the most selfish people get nowhere unless their selfishness takes social influences and constraints into account.

If on the other hand one recognizes the destructive effect that kind of approach to life has on others and ones self, then one will be better able to evaluate the relative good or evil of a given religious or philosophical system.

So long as we agree that by "good" and "evil" we are concerned pretty much exclusively with social consequences. Certainly systems that promote the ideal blend of cooperation and competition with a minimum of animosity produce societies most members find satisfactory. As Machiavelli wrote, where neither their money nor their honor is threatened, most men live content. I would say that a very wide variety of philosophical systems (or sets of shared values) can produce such a society.

In a sense, this is the principle of repentence found in Christian faith.

To objectively evaluate what is good, one needs to lay down ones own selfish motivations. Otherwise one will be unable to avoid being blinded by them.

Jim

There's a common game played in some school curricula. Three people play, and on command each can press a black or a white button. If all three press the same button, each player gets a dollar. If it's 2-1, whoever pressed the unique button wins two dollars and the others get nothing.

Clearly, the best social outcome is for everyone to press the same button - a social total of $3. But equally clearly, it's best for the individual to agree to press the same button as the others, and then press the other one, a social total of $2. There are many such games, showing that in human societies, personal benefit is earned at the expense of the total benefit. So a religion is a way to get everyone to "know in his heart" that pressing the same button as everyone else is "good", and pressing the other one is "evil". We call this enlightened self interest.

And it works. Consider another game, with two players. At the start, one player has all the goodies, and gets to give the other player as much or as little as he chooses. The second player gets to either accept or reject the distribution - and if he rejects it, nobody gets anything. This game has been taught to chimps and gorillas (using food) as well as humans (using money).

And interestingly, gorillas and chimps play according to straight game theory - they reject the distribution ONLY if they are given nothing. They reason that anything at all, however small, is better than nothing.

But not humans! On average, humans will reject anything less than about 40%. And this is true across cultures, across religions, etc. Humans are willing to take a substantial loss in order to enforce "fairness" viewed in human terms. People frequently reject a distribution of thousands of dollars, simply in order to "teach that greedy SOB a lesson."

This is interesting, because any religion or philosophical system that doesn't understand this about people, is going to fail.

[Roy]

There's a common game played in some school curricula. Three people play, and on command each can press a black or a white button. If all three press the same button, each player gets a dollar. If it's 2-1, whoever pressed the unique button wins two dollars and the others get nothing.

Clearly, the best social outcome is for everyone to press the same button - a social total of $3. But equally clearly, it's best for the individual to agree to press the same button as the others, and then press the other one, a social total of $2.

No, it's not. If it was, then all three players would press the other button, and still get $1 each. And knowing that, it's better to press the agreed button in case both the other players renege, in which case you'd get $2. But since all three players know this, you'll get $1.

In practice, every player will press the agreed button until either both the other players renege, after which the other players will stop being dumb, or one of the other players reneges, after which the two co-operators can simply agree to press opposite colours from then on and share their winnings, which guarantees them the $1 per round they expect, and guarantees that the reneger will never get another penny. After a while the reneger may beg to be let back in, but since the two co-operators have nothing to gain from this and a potential loss if the reneger ever re-reneges, they will decline.

Since all three players know that reneging will either gain nothing, cost them $1 immediately, or cost them $1 per round thereafter, anyone who reneges is irrational.

There are many such games, showing that in human societies, personal benefit is earned at the expense of the total benefit. So a religion is a way to get everyone to "know in his heart" that pressing the same button as everyone else is "good", and pressing the other one is "evil". We call this enlightened self interest.

No, a religion is a way to get everyone else to press the same button and help you eliminate anyone who objects, while you pretend to have secret knowledge and tithe them mercilessly.*

And it works. Consider another game, with two players. At the start, one player has all the goodies, and gets to give the other player as much or as little as he chooses. The second player gets to either accept or reject the distribution - and if he rejects it, nobody gets anything. This game has been taught to chimps and gorillas (using food) as well as humans (using money).

And interestingly, gorillas and chimps play according to straight game theory - they reject the distribution ONLY if they are given nothing. They reason that anything at all, however small, is better than nothing.

But not humans! On average, humans will reject anything less than about 40%. And this is true across cultures, across religions, etc. Humans are willing to take a substantial loss in order to enforce "fairness" viewed in human terms. People frequently reject a distribution of thousands of dollars, simply in order to "teach that greedy SOB a lesson."

This is interesting, because any religion or philosophical system that doesn't understand this about people, is going to fail.

It is interesting. I suspect that a lot of the difference may be due to humans' greater ability to negotiate. Have you a reference?

Roy

*Buddhism may be an exception.

[phank]

Since all three players know that reneging will either gain nothing, cost them $1 immediately, or cost them $1 per round thereafter, anyone who reneges is irrational.

But people are not purely rational. Otherwise, Las Vegas would not exist. Everyone there knows the odds are with the house. The goal in this game is to win the $2 as often as possible, to average more than $1 per round. And the only way to do this is to break agreements. So two players agree to press opposite buttons - but they don't.

No, a religion is a way to get everyone else to press the same button and help you eliminate anyone who objects, while you pretend to have secret knowledge and tithe them mercilessly.*
It is interesting. I suspect that a lot of the difference may be due to humans' greater ability to negotiate. Have you a reference?

I think I read about this in Science News some time ago. But I was trying to put religion into the best possible light - as a way to maximize total social benefit in a non-zero-sum game. On the whole, I'd agree with you, that religion is a way for the con artists to milk the suckers, while keeping them convinced it's for their own good. No question, the human ability to sincerely believe anything, no matter how preposterous, provides fabulous leverage for those inclined to use it.

[Roy]

But people are not purely rational. Otherwise, Las Vegas would not exist. Everyone there knows the odds are with the house. The goal in this game is to win the $2 as often as possible, to average more than $1 per round.

No such strategy is possible, since for any player to average more than $1 per round requires that the other players average less than $1 per round - and any two players can guarantee this does not happen. The only way to make more than $1 per round in this game is to physically coerce the other players.

And the only way to do this is to break agreements. So two players agree to press opposite buttons - but they don't.

Breaking that agreement cannot result in a gain, unless you also break the agreement to profit share. In the long run, co-operating players get $1 per round, and non-co-operating players get less. Possibly a lot less.

Alternatively, assume there is a strategy that would gain more than $1 per round. Since all three players are assumed to be identical, they can all use this strategy. Then the total take is more than $3 per round - which contradicts the initial conditions. Therefore there is no strategy that can gain more than £1 per round.

I think I read about this in Science News some time ago. But I was trying to put religion into the best possible light - as a way to maximize total social benefit in a non-zero-sum game. On the whole, I'd agree with you, that religion is a way for the con artists to milk the suckers, while keeping them convinced it's for their own good. No question, the human ability to sincerely believe anything, no matter how preposterous, provides fabulous leverage for those inclined to use it.

Yeah. I'm in the wrong profession.

Roy

[shunyadragon]

I have included YOUR WHOLE POST here, to be careful not to take you out of context.

I am not responding to everything on YOUR WHOLE POST here,

I am only going to comment on the last part of YOUR WHOLE POST where you said "...The main problem is that Christianity considers ALL other religions of the world as delusions. evil, condemned or otherwise false conspiracies..."

ok, here is my comment to that last sentence of your post:

no, shunyadragon, not necessarily "as delusions. evil, condemned or otherwise false conspiracies"

Based on Scripture, I would say "ignorance"

because,

from Acts 17:30-31
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

So, now, I believe it is a Christian's duty to become a missionary, whether its in foreign lands, or at home.
and to help financially support missionaries.

edited to add
just in case including YOUR WHOLE POST is not enough, it is here in POST 46 which shows THE CONTEXT of your post which was replies to oxmixmudd

I guess ignorance or lack of knowledge is a possibility, but in today's world of modern communication that is only a limited possibility. By far most if not all of the millions of the Baha'is are intimately knowledgeable of the Bible, Judaism. Christianity and Islam as well as a general knowledge of most of the major religions of the world.

[jordanriver]

I guess ignorance or lack of knowledge is a possibility, but in today's world of modern communication that is only a limited possibility. By far most if not all of the millions of the Baha'is are intimately knowledgeable of the Bible, Judaism. Christianity and Islam as well as a general knowledge of most of the major religions of the world.

I bet its "ignorance" in the most technologically advanced countries of the world.

Ask any man or woman on the streets of America, (USA specifically, I am not referring to the 2 continents), how does one get to heaven when they die, or, what kind of people go to heaven.

What do you think will be the majority of answers.
...even the Bible Belt,

[shunyadragon]

I bet its "ignorance" in the most technologically advanced countries of the world.

Ask any man or woman on the streets of America, (USA specifically, I am not referring to the 2 continents), how does one get to heaven when they die, or, what kind of people go to heaven.

What do you think will be the majority of answers.
...even the Bible Belt,

Well in this case it is a sophisticated manipulation of the goats by the sheep in Christianity. The herd of elephants tied with a thread.

[jordanriver]

Well in this case it is a sophisticated manipulation of the goats by the sheep in Christianity. The herd of elephants tied with a thread.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your mind is controlled to the point you are not able to comprehend.

[phank]

No such strategy is possible, since for any player to average more than $1 per round requires that the other players average less than $1 per round - and any two players can guarantee this does not happen. The only way to make more than $1 per round in this game is to physically coerce the other players. Breaking that agreement cannot result in a gain, unless you also break the agreement to profit share. In the long run, co-operating players get $1 per round, and non-co-operating players get less. Possibly a lot less.

Yes, any two players working invariably together can. If they do not try to outsmart one another. Which always happens.

Alternatively, assume there is a strategy that would gain more than $1 per round. Since all three players are assumed to be identical, they can all use this strategy. Then the total take is more than $3 per round - which contradicts the initial conditions. Therefore there is no strategy that can gain more than £1 per round.

This is like saying that there is no poker strategy that will always win, and therefore in the long run no player will come out ahead. But of course we know better. When some chance is introduced (as it is when all players are using a combination of cooperation, lying, cheating, bluffing, and guessing) some will come out ahead.

Yeah. I'm in the wrong profession.

Roy

Dig. When I look at some of the slick televangelists, and listen to my neighbors who see everything (and I mean everything) through god-colored glasses, I begin to wonder. Maybe the problem is widespread childhood indoctrination, handed down from generation to generation, but you have to ask who benefits? Maybe that would give us some insight into the motivations for those who work to perpetuate the problem. Hypothetically, imagine a gigantic belief industry, whose very existence is funded by voluntary contributions and tax exemptions. Such an industry might well be motivated to keep the gravy train on track and choogling.