By Gary Jaron, January 2007
One of the most famous paradigm shift in human history is commonly called the ‘Copernican revolution’.
“The Copernican principle is the philosophical statement that no "special" observers should be proposed. The term refers to the paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic model of the heavens, which placed Earth at the center of the Solar system. Nicolaus Copernicus demonstrated that the motion of the heavens can be explained without the Earth (or anything else) being in the geometric center of the system, so the assumption that we are observing from a special position can be dispensed with.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant used the expression "Copernican revolution" to describe the effect that his critical method would have on contemporary epistemological thinking. The conditions and qualities he ascribed to the subject of knowledge placed man at the centre of all conceptual and empirical experience, and overcame the rationalism-empiricism impasse, characteristic of the 17th and 18th centuries.” [Source Wikipedia, January 5, 2007]
What I am proposing is a ‘Copernican Revolution’ a fundamental paradigm shift in theology.
Currently we have communities of believers, who we will assume are intelligent, honest, sincere human beings that assert that their specific religion/faith is a true description of God/Divine and that their religion/faith is either the only true description of the superior description and that the others are either false, or in some way inferior by comparison. Currently we have the metaphoric equivalent of a bunch of people all yelling the same thing: “I am Right!”
Rationally/objectively speaking how do we know who is right?
Historically we have let the truth to take care of itself. This has meant that we have allowed this quest for truth to become a contest, the winner being whoever gets the most converts. But, not all religions have played this conversion game fairly. Christianity and Islam, to take two of the most egregious examples, these two theologies have been willing to gain convert ‘by the sword’. Currently Islam has been adding to its body count.
So, I am asking, rhetorically, is there another way? To which I answer, yes.
Let me begin with laying down a foundation.
Alfred Korzybski derived two fundamental principles in his 1933 book Science and Sanity. The first is this: ‘The map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. [Source: Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, 1933, 4th ed. 1957, p.58.]
Let me explain what he means when he uses the words maps and territory metaphorically in this manner.
The Territory is the universe, it is the totality of everything that is, the stuff of all that is, it is everything that we can examine, consider, interact with and that interacts with us. It is what we are made of and it comprises not only all this stuff but whatever is the source of all this stuff. The totality of everything is the Territory and when we use this word we intend to include everything.
We humans have a physical body and this physical body is part of the stuff that comprises the Territory. When our physical body interacts with the rest of the stuff of the Territory we have an event that is the touchstone of reality and truth. The interaction of our body to other things of the Territory is the closet we can get to experiencing directly reality. The Territory is pre-verbal and it is also non-verbal.
We humans create maps. We humans are mapmakers and map users. Maps are everything humans make using a wide range of symbol systems. Maps are pictorial in a symbolic manner and they are metaphorically verbal. Everything we humans devices, imagine, create to describe, record, recount, and explain the things we have experienced is a map. All human thinking, speaking, writing, drawing, creating to represent, comprehend, recount, explain, illustrate, point to and describe is maps. They are all maps of the Territory.
Korzybski’s second fundamental principle is the realization of another basic relationship, the relationship between ‘words’ and ‘things’. The word ‘word’ is being used as a symbolic placeholder for all human created symbols. Here the term ‘all’ is to be totally 100% inclusive. The word ‘thing’ is being used as a symbolic placeholder for all things other than humanly created symbols. Again the term ‘all’ is to be considered as 100% inclusive. Thus the second principle is this: The word is not the thing. The thing is that which is before human words. The thing is non-verbal. The thing is pre-verbal. The thing refers to a part of and the totality of the Territory.
In trying to find our way in this territory we make maps, which guide us and help us to recall where we have been. But the maps we make are not and can never be the 100% equivalent of the territory. They can only hope to have a structure that resembles the territory. The map is always less than the territory. The territory is infinite in its abundance of details. The map is a finite thing which has elements extracted from the territory to be represented on the map. That process of extraction is important. We extract according to some logic. That logic which defines what data we will extract comes as a result of the more foundational map, tool, and metaphor we are using to build and base upon our new next level map.
An example will be illustrative. On the stable pattern that we call the planet Earth there is a stable pattern we call the North American continent. This continent will be the territory we will focus on for this illustration. This continent will be the uncarved block of this demonstration. Now, we can make a map that shows the geographic features of that continent. It would show placements of rivers, streams, mountains, plains, marshes, forests, etc. We could make a political map of the territory. This map would show political boundaries of countries, states, provinces, etc. We could make a population map of the territory, showing density of population settlement throughout the territory. We could make a road map of the territory. This would show all the paved surfaces that cars and other similar vehicles can drive on. We could make a linguistic map that shows the varying languages spoken and read by the population living on the continent. We could show a map of average rainfall in the territory, a map that shows migratory patterns of the animals that live within the territory. And so on.
We can make potentially infinite number of different maps each depending on the beginning inquiry or purpose of the map. Recognizing this potentially infinite number of maps that can be made from the potentially infinite amount of data that can be abstracted and considered in any given territory/object, is another given premise of Korzybski’s system. His system assumes that anyone mapmaker will by definition not be able to abstract all the data from the territory/object. Any one person can only abstract a finite amount of data. The total amount of data is, by definition potentially infinite.
We have all taken a map, a road map and gotten into our car and driven to a destination, now there are things we will encounter in that exploration of the Territory that will not be on the map. We could get lose, because we are using an out of date map and the reality of the Territory changed but the map we are using is not valid enough. The closer and more accurate the map is the better a map it is – which means it is high useful in describing accurately the Territory. Maps can be tested and verified.
We can imagine a map made by one person and we can imagine that this map is utterly useless as a guide to getting around in exploring the Territory. Hence this map fails to be useful and is in fact useless. We can also imagine a map whose accuracy enables anyone who picks it up and uses it to enable everyone to arrive at their destination. It is as close to 100% accurate as humanly possible. Those are the two extreme ends of the continuum of possibilities.
100% utility and 0% utility with a almost infinite amount of possible variations in-between.
Now, science as a collective communal process is constantly making maps of the Territory. That is what it is all about. The scientific method is the greatest achievement by human beings to create maps that get agreement across cultures and linguistic impediments. The maps of science are the best maps we humans have ever made and there are so because they as best as we humans are able to create a map that have as little of human personal bias as we can render in a map. We can get a scientific fact or theory that can get universal agreement throughout the world’s community of scientists. Now, not all scientific facts and not all scientific theories achieve this unanimous level of agreement, but some do. This is level of unanimity is reached because there is a system in place of verification.
Imagine we have an apple, I take a bite and you take a bite. The apple, my body and your body are all objects of the Territory and our experience of eating that portion of the apple is an event that takes place within the realm of the Territory. Now we two start to use words to describe what we experienced. In doing so we will be as close as humanly possible to making a map of the Territory that is describing the reality of the territory. Describing actual and personal sensory experience is as close as we humans can get to the Territory and making an accurate map of the Territory. Our word ‘apple’ is never going to be the same thing as the non-verbal/pre-verbal reality of the thing that is the apple, but we can get agreement between ourselves that the word ‘apple’ is a 100% accurate map of the territory we have both encountered when we took our bites out of that apple.
The further we get away from talking about direct sensory experience the further removed we are from the reality that is the Territory and the closer to come to making maps of maps – and talking about words – abstract human symbols.
The touch stone is the maps that get 100% unanimous agreement – that is as close as we humans can get to the reality of the Territory.
My proposal is to take the methodology that has enabled science to achieve such a high degree of agreement not only amongst themselves but the high degree in accuracy of the maps in describing the Territory and bring this methodology to the realm of theology and religion. I want to hold the maps of theology and religion up to the same standards of rigor and accuracy that the scientific does for its maps.
Let me begin to explain how this is done by way of example.
For this sake of this discussion the following data is assumed to be accurate.
I will be examining the number of believers in the world in the year 2000.
Number of adherents of world religions:[ source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm]According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations." 13 Most people in the world follow one of the religions listed in the table below. Included is the name of the religion, the approximate date of its origin, its main sacred or ethical texts (if any) and its estimated numerical strength (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the world's population.)
These data are based on census or public opinion data.1Thus, a person is considered to be of a particular religion if they say that they are of that faith. Thus, about 75% of the adults in both the U.S. and Canada are Christians. Many individuals and religious groups have much more strict definitions for membership. Many conservative Christians believe that one has to be "born again" in order to be counted as a Christian. Using this definition, only about 35% of Americans would be counted as Christians. This difference in definitions between conservative Christians and the rest of the population causes much confusion. Some of the approximately 1,000 Christian faith groups in the U.S. and Canada believe themselves to be the only true Christian denomination. Thus, depending on the definition used, the percentage of Christians in the U.S. are between 0.1 and 75% of the total population.
Basic information on various religions:Religion | Date Founded | Sacred Texts | Membership5 | % of World6 |
30 CE | The Bible | 2,039 million | 32% (dropping) | |
622 CE | Qur'an & Hadith | 1,226 million | 19% (growing) | |
1,500 BCE with truly ancient roots | Bhagavad-Gita, Upanishads, & Rig Veda | 828 million | 13% (stable) | |
No religion | - | None | 775 million | 12% (dropping) |
Chinese folk rel. | 270 BCE | None | 390 million | 6% |
523 BCE | The Tripitaka & Sutras | 364 million | 6% (stable) | |
Tribal Religions, Shamanism, Animism | Prehistory | Oral tradition | 232 million | 4% |
No date | None | 150 million | 2% | |
New religions. | Various | Various | 103 million | 2% |
1500 CE | Guru Granth Sahib | 23.8 million | <1% | |
Note 3 | Torah, Tanach, & Talmud | 14.5 million | <1% | |
Spiritism |
|
| 12.6 million | <1% |
1863 CE | Alkitab Alaqdas | 7.4 million | <1% | |
520 BCE | Lun Yu | 6.3 million | <1% | |
570 BCE | Siddhanta, Pakrit | 4.3 million | <1% | |
600 to 6000 BCE | Avesta | 2.7 million | <1% | |
500 CE | Kojiki, Nohon Shoki | 2.7 million | <1% | |
550 BCE | Tao-te-Ching | 2.7 million | <1% | |
Other | Various | Various | 1.1 million | <1% |
800 BCE, 1940 CE | None | 0.5 million? | <1% |
Notes:Note 1:Persons with no formal, organized religion include agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, secularists, etc.Note 2:We have included Wicca even though their numbers are small because such a large percentage of our site's visitors are of that faith. There is no reliable measure of their numbers. Some Wiccans believe that their faith can be traced back to the origins of the Celtic people; other suggest is is a recently created religionNote 3: There is no consensus on the data of founding of Judaism. Some claim that Adam and Eve were the first Jews, and lived circa 4000 BCE; others suggest that they never existed. Some would place the date at the time of Abraham, circa 1900 BCE; others consider Abraham to be a mythical character. Some date it to the Exodus from Egypt circa 1490 BCE; others say that no Exodus happened, and the ancient Hebrews were originally a group that gradually separated from the main body of Canaanites and developed a different culture.
“Christian mission, for example, was essentially flat in the twentieth century. There were only 558 million Christians in the world in 1900 and there will be approximately 2 billion Christians by the middle of this year, a huge increase. But as a percentage of world population, Christianity has been treading water for a century: Christians were 34.5 percent of world population in 1900, and will be 33.1 percent in 2002.
Half of the world’s 2 billion Christians are Catholics. The next largest “megablock” of Christians is found in the denominationally-unaffiliated “Independent Churches,” which have some 400 million members — almost twice as many as the 217 million Orthodox believers in the world. Barrett counts 350 million denominationally-affiliated Protestants and another 80 million in the Anglican “megablock.” The relative positions of these “megablocks” within world Christianity will likely remain constant for the next quarter-century.” [Source: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0010.html]
Now what does all of this tell us? Well collectively Christianity has the largest numbers of believers 32% of the planets population know that Christianity is the best map of the Territory known as God/Divine. This of course leaves 68% of the world population that disagree with the Christian map. Islam has 19% of the world’s population which means that 81% of the world disagrees with that map.
Now when you combine the atheists with the rest of the non-believers ‘no religion’ in the statistics above you get 14% of the world’s population using a map that has no does not contain the Dvine/God but that 86% of the planet disagrees with that non-God inhabited map.
As you can see there is no unanimity. The closet thing we get to agreement is that of 86% of the planet believes in some form of sacred map of the Territory.
Where do we go from here?
I suggest we take the data, the maps from the worlds greatest map makers in the realm of theology and examine them for commonality. My theory is that we can and must search amongst all theologies for commonality.
Specifically I believe we will find a great degree of commonality and agreement amongst the mystical theologians, and therefore I hypothesis we will derive a greater the degree of accuracy in describing the Territory of the Sacred. I suggest we use the writings of the mystics as the experimental data just like the scientists do in their fields – they examine the data that their field researchers gather and draw conclusions from the data. The writing’s of the mystics is the collective map making and field research data gathers of the theological Territory.
Now, when you do this, one of the first things you find is that all the worlds mystics in all the varying traditions and throughout the history of those traditions – they all developed a ‘Cloud of Unknowing’ a theory that the true nature and reality of the Territory that is the Divine was 2 things.
1) The true nature of the Divine was deeper and more complex than the simple literal reading of the sacred scriptures of any of the traditions. The mystics all agree that the True nature of the Divine is not an anthropomorphically describable thing. That the God who can be described as ‘walking’, ‘talking’, and doing and having other attributes similar to humans is a simplistic conception of the Divine, but under this is a deeper and more accurate description of the Divine that is not anthropomorphic.
2) The true nature of the Divine is a thing that is infinite.
3) Since the true nature of the Divine is the Infinite it is beyond the finite limits of what human words and conceptions could contain. The true nature of the Divine was of a thing that was not containable by any human idea or conception or to use our prior metaphor beyond any human map.
Note how those statements, independently arrived at by the world’s mystics, agree with our general principles about the nature of reality in the relationship of human maps to the Territory.
I submit that this is a remarkable result and it demonstrates the power of this model. We have taken the 86% of the world’s population, taken the greatest minds of that group, examined their data and found agreement! We have achieved something akin to what has been done in the realm of the scientific community.
By continuing to search historical data and search for communalities we can build a planetary theological map of the nature of the Divine and thus produce the best and most useful theological map possible.
Now, one of the most immediate casualties in this methodology is the notion that anyone single theological map is the “One and Only True Map.” This falsehood is clearly demonstrated by the fact of the largest community of believers, Christianity has only 32% of the population while the rest of the planet, 68% of the world disagrees with its claim for being the “One and Only True Map”. No single theology is the one true map. No one theological map had ever achieved anything close to 100% agreement and I suggest that, considering the history of the planet, no one theological map will ever be. Remember that the current 32% is the result of murder, war, extortion in the actions taken by Christianity to convert the unbelievers – how many believers would they have if they did not forcibly convert or kill of those who refused to convert?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 105
Still, I tend to agree with much of it.
NIV version written by necromancers, and a belief in a New World Religion blending East and West blasphemies. One of the Greek reference dictionaries was written by Hitler's minister of propaganda and found guilty of war crimes.
Simply put, I answer your perversions with these facts:
Two Histories
See, there are two histories, not just one, that emerged. If you don't mind my being simplistic, let me describe them:
Apostolic OR Apostate (heretics-disbelieving cardinal doctrines)
Antioch (Acts 11:26) Alexandria, Egypt (never a good thing said about it)
Preserved words of God Perverted words of God
5,321 manuscripts: massively agree. 45 manuscripts. No *two* consecutive verses in them agree!
Persecuted by others, Bibles burned and their people brutally killed Persecutors of the believers, killed Christians and burned their Bibles
Manuscripts Reformed the Christians Manuscripts Deformed the Roman Catholic "Church".
Bibles without Apocrypha Apocrypha COMES from Alexandrian "Bibles"!
Bibles lead to Tyndale to Rogers to Coverdale, to Great Bible to Geneva, to Bishop's Bible to the King James Bible.
Bibles lead to Constantine's "Bibles," to RC Latin Vulgate to Jesuit 1582/1610 Rheims/Douay to Challoner's Revision to the 1850s revised Douay/Rheims to the New American Bible (on the Roman Catholic side);
Protestant Side: Revised Version (1881), made with the SAME MANUSCRIPTS, and all those that followed, such as the NIV, ASV, RSV, TEV, NASV, NRSV, NEB, REB, Good News, New Living, and almost 200 others!
The King James Bible brought revival The "per-versions" brought a revival--of doubt.
The KJV brought the missionary movement The Catholic versions caused people to submit to Rome.
The KJV helped found the USA The Catholic versions were only used by Roman Catholics
The KJV helped people say: "Thus saith the LORD!"
The modern Alexandrian versions quenched God's words. People said, "thus saith my teacher!"
NIV and other NEW translations have omitted over 64,000 WORDS to dilute and pollute the KJV.
If you REALLY want to explore the root of the lies you promote, try
FAQ's Concerning Bible Versions
OR one of the most important books ever written EXACTLY defining the roots of the lies you regurgitate.
New Age Bible Versions
But, of course, you will be unable to deny the TRUTH of these writings, so I expect you to continue your bald-face mis-representations.
Some people headed for, or already in, hell, will insist that they are in heaven ... and still going higher yet.
Those types have no concept of what mystic is ... other than what their leaders have told them ... something heretical, deluded, false and probably evil ... just a tool of Satan.
Small minds that are determined to stay that way ... will.
Your proposal is only valid for individuals who cannot understand why differing religions interract with such explosive and emotional consequences. To answer one of the first questions you ask "Rationally/objectively speaking how do we know who is right?", I say that EVERYONE is both RIGHT and WRONG simultaneously! In religion and theology, there is no place for conformity between the different sects and theologies. It will not happen.
Religion is such a deeply personal and deeply fundamental endeavor that even within a single "church", no two people will experience exactly the same faith.
Your fine article and its attempts to put 'facts' in the service of humanity about theologies, religions, and human behaviors, combined, I'm sure, with the praising and critical comments of the gather 'responders' here, so far, is and will open new doors and act to moderate the boundedness of human thoughts that can be both constructive and destructive for human betterment. Thank you!
However, I also say "GO,GO!". We ALL, on our blessed EARTH, need to enter into discussions about the importance of what I refer to as ' EXISTENTIAL WONDER' and then the accompanying idea-question of "What produced all this remarkable stuff that we call 'things and thoughts?" GOD? G_D? Laws of Nature? Unresolvable scientific MYSTERIES that will ever endure?
What created all this incredible, remarkable, organized stuff, and what will happen when there are a sufficient number of mind-hearts that will see the glories of growing dynamic and NEW consciousnesses in each of ourselves?
My best to you. I know what it is to be hooked into the 'questing' process, and I can see in you a fortunate inquirerer who, to use the Bergsonian concept of a GOAL for each of us: to look about and try to discover that "the essential function of the universe, ... is a machine for the making of gods." [small 'g']
Dick
The idea that the Bible is some special text is not supported by history and facts.
And since the vast majority of the planet demonstrate that after thousands of years of talking with God there is not agreement but a variety of differing views on the nature of God - I and the facts of history can conclude that any one faith is not the truth.
Ahh...but I just gave 3 examples that the best 'experts'- the best explorers into the Territory of the Divine, the community of mystics who come from all the worlds faiths and have been gathering data for as long as their have been thoughts about the Divine - they did come to agreement! I just listed 3 points. I can go on to list many more.
My idea can give results - you can go into history, into the Sacred Scriptures, the writtings of the mystics and you can search for commanlity and see what turns up.
Those who have studied mystics, Eveylyn Underhill, William James, and F. C. Happold, just to name 3, all say that there is agreement amongst the mystics. Demonstrating that actually yes indeed people can and have expereinced the Territroy of God the same way.
I did in another place on gather say the exact same thing the 'everyone is both right and wrong in exactly the same manner.' But there is a place for conformity between different sects and theologies.
And more importantly it needs to happen.
I beleive that the history can show that the theological idea that "There is Only One True Faith" is a false idea and a idea with dangerous consequences - murderously dangerous results. The facts of history of the 'conversion' of people to Christianity and Isalm is littered with murdered people. My essay concerning Micah's prophecy can know be shown as an accurate description of history.
Accept that all faiths are vailid results in peace not war, asset that only one faith is vailid and you get conflict, war and murder. Micah as I read the words says he has a vision for peace by saying that "Let all peoples walk in the name of their God, while we will walk in the name of our God forever and ever." That is a formula for peace that has been proven by history. When Islam and Christianity ignored the idea and assert their "one true faith' principle they gave themselves and excuse to murder people.
We better start using my hypothesis and start holding those two religions accountable for the crimes they, have and in the case of Islam are currently engaging, in against humanity.
I do confess I wrote the essay in a burst of inspiration, so it might have gotten a little messy or confusing - did not intend that to happen. I will greatfully go back and edit the essay or expand on it to bring clairity - but right now I'm still basking and exhausted after the creative act it's difficult to critically examine what I just did - I will be greatfull for your specific pointing out confussion and need for clarity.
Why should I or anyone convert? I and everyone else can know ask for proof and facts. show me specific data to back the claim of superiority? Show me it has yielded greater insights - site me chapter and verse from the writings of the mystics.
I mostly agree. I endorse your call for a new and united quest for truth about God. I believe that those united in the quest will produce a notion of God, and maybe some semblance of religion, that is superior to the extant ones. But the product will still be flawed. Time goes whizzing on. In another 50 years or so we will need to do the whole process again. So much will have been learned. The darkness of ignorance will have been pushed back in so many areas. We'll have to start over. OK not exactly start over. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Keep what is good. Make adjustments. Incorporate good new stuff.
Let us create new scripture. Let us devolve a new idea of God. All the old ones are flawed. But so will be our new one, even if it is better than all the others. What is needed is the process. The humility to admit that we got it wrong. And the enthusiasm to keep trying.
I arrive at agreement with you from a different path, thinking that the inventors of legacy religions were no different from you and me. No different in our ability to experience or intuit God. Wait. It's more complicated than that. First we need to think about giftedness. Giftedness is well known. It is part of our world view. Just watch Michael Jordan play basketball. (OK films of him playing in his prime.) Just think of Einstein or Beethoven. Put the human population under a bell shaped curve and out on the positive tail you find such individuals. You also find them gifted in ability to experience or intuit God. Jesus was out there, as was the Buddha and, to list a modern example, one of many, Mother Teresa. Currently there are a lot of people under the bell shaped curve and so there are a few people out on the positive tail. And if you compare the world populations to that in the days if religion invention, we probably have more divinely gifted people than they did. These people are not different in their ability to experience or intuit God than the founders of our legacy religions. Of course the ones living today would have a more complete world view because of all mankind has learned in the interim.
I am not saying that these modern day prophets should be the sole basis of our new understanding of God and Religion. We should keep what is valuable in the legacy religions. So, I believe we stand in essential agreement.
BTW, your pieces are so long and so labored. I am curious about how writing them fits into your life. Is it all you do?
BTW, a mild criticism. While your content is deep and creative, your writing style is relatively poor. I recommend Strunk and White.
Cheers
Jim
Your description of history is not accurate according to the New Testament Scholars I've read - they see the text as flawed and falible. Which is true of all of the worlds sacred scriptures.
I'm launching alot of test ballons on Gather. So, yes, the writting can be a bit hasty.
I do spend a great deal of my waking hours thinking and reading about all the things I write about on Gather. I've spent my life exploring and trying to map out the nature of human reality. Which means I'm reading books on physics, cosmology, linguistics, sociology, neurology, congnitive psychology, theology, mystics, mysticism, biblical text chriticism, Kabbalah, taoism, history of religion, philosophy, metaphysics, etc. My apartment is strewn with books to be read and that I'm in the process of reading. Additionally print outs of my book -with red marks and cross outs and arrows - showing my thoughts about how to edit and better organize my book. Lately I've been bursting with energy on this endeavor.
so, yeah I should perhaps not be so hasty and return to the cloiser and once more sit at the feet of those master his Holiness Struck and his True Disciple White. :>)
But there is a large class of people in this country that my comment would apply to ... unfortunately for all.
Peace, j.
I wish I were as scholarly as you. If I were, I could have foot notes also to backup what I know ... I know it also, but will not take the time and effort to lay it out as you do ... my message is primarily inspirational and thus done in metaphor and allegory ... not what the objective people that I would prefer to be my audience are probably open to. And, the subjective people that recognise the truths in that already know most of it ... so I am either preaching to the choir, or talking way over the heads of a would-be congregation ... sometimes it seems such a waste of effort ... but really, if only one person sees the light, it will have been worth it all.
I know that all of the people that have responded here are aware that I have a book of my own very much related to this subject ... but I would like to remind all one more time, that the heart of my book does offer to this world the very solution that the preceding article suggests.
The BET (Basic Equation of Truth) as the (+=-) IS THE SOLUTION ! Because in short, it allows, even encourages each and all to accept their own opinion as well as that of the other ... it only asks that they seek withIN their own hearts to Spirit for verification, their own INtuition is a better guide to their personal Truth that all of the 'good' books combined !
My offering will be found to be a Paradox ... but THAT IS what our Universe Truly is !
Please take the time to check this out if you want a better more peaceful world based upon truth. Thanks, j.
Gary, I wish everyone would convert because I believe my faith to be the right one. The answer to all of the questions. I would be lacking in my faith if I did not want to share it with everyone else and if I was not hopeful that they would all gain the benefits I have enjoyed. Out of respect for others, even as I feel their faiths are "wrong", I would never to anything more than pray and attempt to persuade.
He says quite clearly that maps can exist in an array of accuracies from
"100% utility and 0% utility with a almost infinite amount of possible variations in-between."
But he does not advocate the ridiculous path of mashing all the maps together and seeing what averages or percentages yield, in order to arrive at a valid physical map. Yet that is precisely what he does to arrive at what he claims is a valid theological map. The rest is a bunch of BS to make it appear that he is being scientific.
What they cannot believe, is any word that was not printed in their bible ... only the prophets of 'old' are valid to them. All later would-be prophets then must be false for them, tainted by their devil Satan, out to snare them into hell.
Now Mystics, that is another heretic occult evil of some offshoot cult as far as they are concerned ... their priests tell them so ... the word of 'authority', no thinking for yourself allowed ! Heaven forbid that they use their own INtuition ... common sense is of the nature of man, fallen and a natural sinner ... never trust another person unless they have been blessed by the priests ...
OK, this 'has' to fit some of you according to your comments (John ?) ... or maybe you can tell me what Mysticism is all about ? Is it not possible that God could still communicate to His children ? Or did that all end 2,000 years ago ?
All Gary is attempting to do is find a way to bring all peoples together into some kind of peaceful dialogue ... what in God's name is so bad about that ???
"All Gary is attempting to do is find a way to bring all peoples together into some kind of peaceful dialogue"
Sure he is . . . and a good way to get things started I suppose is;
"Remember that the current 32% is the result of murder, war, extortion in the actions taken by Christianity to convert the unbelievers – how many believers would they have if they did not forcibly convert or kill of those who refused to convert?
Just makes me feel all warm and cuddly . . .
'We all know that the White Race is superior intellectually and morally and the horrible state of crime, violence and degradation we have currently is the result of allowing the inferior races to impose their degrading influences on society. I wish that everyone would recognize that belief to be the right one. It is the answer to all the questions of what is wrong with society. I would be lacking in my beliefs if I did not want to share it with everyone else and if I was not hopeful that they would all gain the benefits I have enjoyed. Out of respect for others, even as I feel their beliefs are 'wrong', I would never do anything more than pray and attempt to persuade.'
I think that we can all recognize that what it is a racist remark framed in a form of 'politeness.' Just because the person is polite doesn't mean he isn't a bigot. I offer Microsoft's Encarta Dictionary definition of the word Bigot : 'somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views.'
But because of the fact of history, that the religious majority has by use of force become that majority in the Western World, we are suppose to tolerate the following reference to the speaker's religious belief and not treat it as a religious variant of what I presented as Belief A?
"Gary, I wish everyone would convert because I believe my faith to be the right one. The answer to all of the questions. I would be lacking in my faith if I did not want to share it with everyone else and if I was not hopeful that they would all gain the benefits I have enjoyed. Out of respect for others, even as I feel their faiths are "wrong", I would never do anything more than pray and attempt to persuade."
My ideas can be and are being challenged - I have no problem with that.
All I ask is that those who challenge them treat my views as an attempt to move the discussion of religious ideas away from the form of shouting: "I have Truth!" and more to the form of a analysis and discourse commonly found in the scientifc community. There the model of discourse is based on a framework and metholdolgy of testing the veracity and validity of statements and conclusions with comparison to the reality of the data found in the Terrirtory.
I am challenging the idea that there is "Only One True Faith".
Christianity and Islam - the two faiths whose beleivers proclaim that they are the exclusive source of Truth and are the "One True Faith" - I do continually challenge and attack. But I restrict my challenge to their childish claims of being "The One True Faith". I have respect for all other claims they want to make about the Territory of the Dviine - I just beleive that every statement should find a way to be grounded in proof, and if none is available than be willing to recogninze and acknowledge that there is no proof. Testability, rigorous analysis, etc - the methodology used in science, be applied to religion.
If a scientist made a statement that she could not back up using the system of testing called the scientific method, that statment would be treated as merely her opinion. Unsubstantiated statements in the realm of science are treated not as facts or truths but relegated to the fringe - they are 'merely an opinion.'
The idea of obtaining veracity of the truth about the divine through consensus of various religious doctrines seems like looking for the truth about talking animals by comparing the Tales of Beatrix Potter. "
My reply: The writings of the world's community of mystics is not the stuff of the intentional creation of fiction that 'the Tales of Beatrix Potter' were. The mystics have attempted by means of prayer, meditation, contemplation to reach a communion with the Divine – the Territory they seek to explore and map.
Examining the writings of the mystics, which is a collection of material that covers all of the world's differing religious systems and is an endeavor that is as old as the establishment of religion, this record is enormous.
The methodologies of the mystics are remarkably comparable; they all describe similar techniques of prayer, meditation and contemplation.
Having said that the first threshold question to legitimately ask is: What is going on? Are the writings of the mystics merely the record of delusion? I, and those who have studied the literature, reply – It is a record of a phenomenon that has a basis in reality – we have interaction by humans with the Territory. They call this aspect of the Territory 'the Divine'.
Still, it would be a record of delusion if the construct 'the Divine' was not found to correspond to the reality of the Territory – the realm of matter/energy interactions which are bodies are made up of and interact with.
There still remains the challenge of proving that the Divine exists.
But the fact that there is a consensus of methodology and description in the reports of those who have claimed to 'communion with the Divine' that begs to be given credibility. So many people, throughout thousands of years of recorded human history, all doing essentially the same thing all report back similar experiences. Something real is going on here. There is a consistent pattern of interaction taking place between the human body and the rest of the Territory or at least within the internal interactions of the Territory demarcated as the human body.
Now, although there is consensus that the Divine is 'beyond human comprehension' there is also consensus that the mystics move onto map out the nature of the Divine knowing that this is only a human map and not the actuality of the Territory. This is a remarkable expression of humility and acknowledgment of the potential that they as humans have for bias. They, like other good scientists, acknowledge that they are making maps of a mysterious realm. They are acknowledging that their maps are not to be considered as the same thing as the Territory. But they hope that their maps are useful tools to explore the Territory of the thing they call the Divine.
The mystical literature is voluminous and filled with great detailed maps. The maps utilize the metaphors of their respective culture/religion of origin. But we can use their data, their maps and try to discover common patterns. Those common patterns would be examples of the structure of the Territory and perhaps not just biases of any one culture or religion. Finding common patterns is what science is about.
To make theology a 'science' would mean that it would become a study that makes hypothesizes and then people would test the validity of those hypothesizes. Statistical analysis is a methodology to test the data.
Yes, religion does demonstrate that it can doctrines can change and the mystics material, the metaphors and maps it uses and creates, shows a dynamic development over its history. The record is not one of repeating the same thing over and over again.
The huge question still remains – is this a record of human capacity for self-delusion – a branch of the Territory best explored by psychology and psychiatry, or is it a record of human exploration of the Territory – a variation of the exploration done by astronomers?
Steve: "I think it is tempting to get bogged down in the statistics of consensus and forget that we are basically talking about dynamic fable based belief systems that were never meant to be deconstructed by the masses. "
I have an opinion that the Divine exists and is not merely a 'dynamic fable'. But that is merely an opinion. Careful study of the writings of the mystic and then perhaps rigorous experiments done by today's mystics could lead to a way of discovering whether this is a delusion or not.
"Remember that the current 32% is the result of murder, war, extortion in the actions taken by Christianity to convert the unbelievers – how many believers would they have if they did not forcibly convert or kill of those who refused to convert?
Just makes me feel all warm and cuddly . . ."
besides making such statements can you disprove my claim? Can you offer any evidence that Christianity and Islam have not during the history of this planet used violence and the threat of death as acceptable methods to convert. Do you find violence and the threat of death acceptable behavior?
All I'm doing is pointing out what Chrisianity and Islam have done - that is the facts of history. Can you dispute my summary of history?
Scientific methods are subjectively began via inquiring thought, questions. The results when successful are considered proven and objectively believable, becoming the 'facts' of our joint reality for objective oriented people.
The subjective that faith and/or the divine is all about is not amenable to such 'proof' ... it remains either a matter of simple faith and/or an opinion, sometimes based upon both, subjective as well as physically objective experience. (I can and do, attest to having experienced both of those). But even the objective experience comes down to only being relatable subjectively to others ... unless of course science really became involved (as you suggest) at which point maybe they 'could' develop believable and repeatable data that was also objective ...
As I write here, it dawns on me that this most definitely is a real possibility ... but it can only lead to real truth if and when the entirety of all involved is questioned ... as it stands, science does not seem open to such ... and religions are most all, way to 'protective' of their own dogma and creeds ....
So as now and always, it still hinges around the individual and the degree s/he seeks truth ... relative or transcendent. The 'authorities of the institutions' will give their relative versions ... and the divine will give direct revelation of the absolute version ... thus it has always been and always will be ... IMnsHO.
"Can you dispute my summary of history?"
Gary's commit murder and rape.
Can you dispute my summary of history?
"We should not only examine that which proves a preferential case we want to make"
Then, of course you agree that Gary is being highly selective here?
"I am challenging the idea that there is "Only One True Faith".
That's great, you're perfectly free to do so. And others are perfectly free to point out that if there is a God, there may be one "true" faith, initiated by that God. That's just the way things work; A Supreme being would naturally have the ability to initiate a "true" faith.
Even without your permission.
Gary is doing precisely what he says;
"Throughout the many essays and comments I have made on Gather there is a common thread, a common motif.
I am challenging the idea that there is "Only One True Faith".
All this talk of science and maps is irrelevant, Gary will make any connection with any silly logic he can. He doesn't believe in a God that would (or could) inspire and preserve a message to humans.
He wishes all to agree. That's it.
Well said, though I suggest the good rabbi's intent could be put;
That which is hateful to you, do not do to others . . .
To remove any doubt as to their "global" scope.
You say;
Unfortunately: it is also universally agreed, it seems, that direct mystical experiences have very little content that one might call cognitive...
I say;
I am not sure what 'you' mean by that ... but after checking my dictionary, I would have to disagree. My experience with the Mystical would give evidence to the contrary of that statement. There results so much knowing as be called wisdom even ... of course that is subjective, but that is what the spiritual is all about.
You also say;
...Therefore, to construct a complete and cohesive theology from the accounts of mystics is probably not doable, any more than constructing a medical textbook on human nutrition from the accounts of those who have tasted apples.
I say;
Doable or not, there is probably no better source of spiritual information than such Mystics ... remember, it is all subjective anyway.
You say;
The favor of God is toward everyone, of any religion or none.
I say;
Agreed, whole heartedly.
You say;
the only option, I am afraid, remains with what is called "revelation," that is to say, sacred texts.
I say;
Revelation for sure ... but not relied upon via sacred texts that may well be in error or incomplete ... there is nothing like first hand experience. A text by one that had that direct experience I might well put some stock into, but those by others and hearsay years later, unh uhh.
John says revision of what you said;
That which is hateful to you, do not do to others . . .
I say;
Absolutely ! That is the key to it all ... (+=-).
And you do not consider taking it upon oneself to declare the source of an other's revelation invalid, to be hateful?
Is this not what I said ?
Revelation for sure ... but not relied upon via sacred texts that may well be in error or incomplete ... there is nothing like first hand experience. A text by one that had that direct experience I might well put some stock into, but those by others and hearsay years later, unh uhh.
As usual lately, you have a hair up your b#tt to look for trouble with people that do not agree 100% with you ...
I would ask here ... who is it that is being hateful ???
Hate comes from Fear ... I have no Fear, what is it John that you so Fear (besides evil) ???
So, you think it is right that each person judge the revelation of any they wish, based on their own revelations? Or rationale? Or preference?
If one gets a revelation direct from the divine spirit, I just suspect that they would trust that over some ancient handed down through many languages and interpretations type revelation written as I said ...
If you ever had such a revelation you would know what I mean and not disagree as you do. IMnsHO.
So, if one feels their revelation comes from a valid source, they should feel free to point out sources they don't feel are valid, and criticize them?
I thought I had made myself clear. We should trust what we trust. If it is trustworthy to us, it should stand our test of outside criticism. If it is true it is, and if you believe it so, there is nothing to fear.
Basically what I have been saying has not been the 'criticism' that 'you' seem to want to take personally all of the time. I stand by my many statements so far to the best of my recollection as to what they have meant to me ... I believe that you do not fully understand those meanings.
But as far as revelations that may just be incomplete, mis-represented, mis-understood, or just felt to be in error ... and someone believes they have a more correct view as revealed direct to them from the divine ... sure, they should speak up ... do you John believe they should not ?
So, if a Christian feels that only their revelation is valid, they should not hesitate to say so, and others should accept their criticism as just?
As far as I know, yes ... is that not what debate is all about ?
I guess we have a rather different view of what would bring peace between various believers. The Christian Bible, and of course the "Old Testament" it builds upon, as Charles has pointed out, forbids men from passing judgement on the revelations of others. We are not to ridicule any for what they believe, and not to decide for ourselves what God might choose to do.
I don't think your philosophy on this would resolve disputes, and might very well prove disastrous if accepted by all.
I realize this position puts believers in the God of Abraham at something of a disadvantage in debate, but that hasn't proven a fatal weakness thus far. It would be nice however if others did not take such advantage.
The philosophy that I present, is for the purpose of enlarging the choices currently held by many, of a way to think, in order to eventually receive their own revelations.
The entire concept is about opening to receiving the spirit and trusting that spirit for the tough decisions. It has to be a real valid experience around spirit for it to work.
Naturally the adoption of an anything goes attitude is not the answer as you seem to think I propose. I propose the discovery of the absolute truth of GOD via spiritual revelation ... I propose the opening of the mind and seeking that withIN the Self rather than relying on the books we have been talking about.
If this happened to all, it would be the opposite of a disaster ... it could be a heaven on earth.
So far, lately, I have been finding the bulk of Christians questioned here on Gather, are believing that Jesus IS God ... seems to me, to be a view that leaves all others out of where ever it is that you all feel that will take you.
Charles was telling primarily of the Jewish perspective about allowing others their beliefs ... many Christians mouth such words but condemn all others to hell in my experience.
The children of Abraham had better find a way to get along, or you might just all soon find a fatal disaster awaiting ... the Muslims are such children also.
You haven't been talking about any books, you've been talking about your own imagination. You are incredibly ignorant of what the Bible actually says, and haven't a clue as to what it reveals. Your judgments are based on rumors. You are the most judgemental person I've ever spoken to at length, regardless of how you may rationalize it.
I am truly sorry that you see things the way you do ... you may eventually learn the difference between truthful (esoteric) Discernment as I attempt ... and
The disingenuous Judgement (exoteric) that you are displaying ... talk about the pot calling the kettle black ...
Enjoy
"Well said, though I suggest the good rabbi's intent could be put;
That which is hateful to you, do not do to others . . .
To remove any doubt as to their "global" scope."
I only wish historically Christianity and Islam (historically and currently) followed that principle. The last thousand years of Jewish history has been one of persecution & execution by Christians in the name of Christianity. Not to mention the warfare and persectution by one Christian group of another Christian group. All those Christians who fled to the Colonies in America were fleeing from that persectuion and execution by other 'orthodox' Christian leaders and communities.
The history of Christianity and Islam is more of violating that 'Golden Rule' than living in accordance with it.
Hence why I find the idea of "One True Faith" to be the human creation of those who want power and control.
"I only wish historically Christianity and Islam (historically and currently) followed that principle."
I am a human being. I have no power over history. I have no power over "Christianity".
Your insistence that we accept the overall impact of Christian, or Abrahamic religion in general as negative is unsubstantiated. Any fool could find a bone to pick with the actions of several billion people over several thousands of years. Odd that you fail to mention the stupendous amounts of violence done for reasons other than religion, or the results of anti-religious groups or figures. How quickly we forget the staggering slaughter of recent history, done by those who clearly opposed Abrahamic traditions.
I don't think any stretch of the imagination could yield the conclusion that Jews are imperiled by Christians in the real world. Quite the contrary, these two branches of faith are intimately allied. It is two bit sniping by wanna be messiahs that distorts and confuses the reality of this. It's called 'cherry picking' Gary, and your hands are red from much busy work. Your motivation is not at all difficult to see, and your methods are far from peaceful.
Is it their 'loyalty' to their concept of God as God's first line of defence ... like God needs or requires them to be that way ? Can't be much of an OMNI-God if that is needed.
Or is it really the defending of the their ego construct of their relationship claimed to their idol ... ? As if, if that is at all questioned, it puts themselves in question and evidently at some kind of risk ... maybe their INtuition is telling them something different that they deny, trusting more in each other and some thousands of years of history ... I would wonder what is so special about that history ... seems pretty lacking to me ... but maybe some of us just have higher standards and goals ...
For me it's about rational thought. Kinda like when you take on the neosheep. If no one stands up to BS and propaganda it starts to appear legitimate to some. I hate to see people misled. It's dangerous.
That is why I comment as I do.
Then surely you find it distasteful when some simply infer that any who disagree with their perspective must be doing so for egocentric or fearful reasons, or take sides with those who arrive at conclusions which favor their perspective, regardless of the logic employed in arriving at those conclusions.
my God's bigger than your God because he eats Kennel ration...... ooops.
Dyslexia got me again.
First off, I almost always speak in generalities ... until someone makes it more personal, at which point I then may get more specific about their own ego/fear possibilities of misunderstanding or disagreements.
When I do that, it is in answer to what is transpiring between us, and I believe is very relative to the issue at hand. I have found out in my experience that egocentric people see things exoterically and those that have gotten beyond the ego see things more esoterically ... that is just the way we work, the 'secret' of the universe (especially this world in it) and 'that' is what my whole 'message' is about ... for people to realize that box thinking of dualism NEED's to be, and CAN be, transcended ... at least for those willing to open to the possibility.
It is not my nature to beat around the bush trying to sugar coat the message ... I just lay it out as I see it and it becomes then a take it or leave it issue ... but when some take it too personal, as you have done on occasion, then it devolves into more of a personal issue ... that just being my response and reaction. I do not intend up front to make anything I say that personal.
I am always more than willing to discuss any issue on whatever realm of logic, rationality, or even emotion if desired ... I much prefer an issue by issue discussion over personalizing with innuendo and other hidden jabs ... BUT, I can respond, and have, when it comes to that ... though, as I repeat here, I would rather not.
There is no subject that I know of more important to this world right now than the understanding of why we all think the way we do ... given the implications where that seems to be taking us all on the world stage of our so-called 'evolution' ...
Seems that the world needs to AT LEAST learn how to agree to disagree ... even you and I could/should do that without overly personalizing into conflicts.
If no one makes any attempt to change the past then it will be repeated. Yes, it is up to people living today to change their attitudes to insure that the past mistakes are not repeated.
The history of Christian - Jewish relations in the past is one of persecution and murder on the part of Organized Christian Church towards the Jewish People.
Islam from its creation beleived it was/is the Only True Faith and went to war with the world to conquer. It almost suceeded in conquering all of the Western World. The horrors of 9/11 and what is going on in Iraq is directly related to the beleif held by Islam that it is "The One True Faith".
"I don't think any stretch of the imagination could yield the conclusion that Jews are imperiled by Christians in the real world. " John you clearly are utterly ignorant of history! Open up a book of Jewish history and you will read a never ending tale from around 100CE to the Nazi Horror of how Christianity imperiled the Jewish People. The Nazi's could never have accoplished what they did with the passive complacency of Christians throughout Europe - After so many hundreds of years of msitreating the Jews it seems no big deal that the Nazi's were once again selecting the Jews.
Read some history before you make such utterly ignorant statements.
"If no one makes any attempt to change the past then it will be repeated"
No one I know has any power to change the past. Though some seem to think they can understand what those in the past were thinking, so perhaps it seems a small step to them.
You repeatedly make assumptions about what others thought, or are currently thinking, and then assign a causal relationship to what they might have done, such as your implication that the belief that some hijackers may have had that theirs was the most valid form of worship was the reason they attacked others. This is extremely weak logic. It is akin to saying the hijackers all had dark hair, so that is the cause of their actions.
People are not the cartoon characters you can imagine in your head, and just because you can perform such connect the dots operations on those little imaginary people in there, does not mean it is THE explanation for what real human beings do.
You display incredibly poor reasoning by somehow stringing together the logic that Nazi's persecuted Jews, many in Europe were Christians (Hitler fried a lot of them too by the way), One of the beliefs of Christians is that Christ was extremely unique, and therefor; It is the belief that some aspects of one's "faith" are indeed true regardless of what others may think, which led to the Holocaust.
Just because two things can be placed near each other in a sentence does not mean they are causally related. Life just isn't really so simple, or intimately linked to what Gary Jaron happens to imagine.
"John you clearly are utterly ignorant of history"
No, just your meandering thoughts about it.
"First off, I almost always speak in generalities ... "
Yes, I noticed that. Another way to put it is that you believe the little people in your head are real, and that what you imagine about them is fact. Speaking in generalities is a good way to stimulate suspicion and prejudice in those whom see the world in generalities, and are convinced that the world is as simple as their own imagination. Mr. Hitler, coincidentally, was a master at this way of describing others. So is Mr. Bush. I can't help but wonder why some so like that form of understanding . . . maybe it's unconditional love of . . . something.
"Having a God made in man's image - filled with with human characteristincs like love and wrath and creativity - this doesn't ring true to me. Any God worthy of the title wouldn't have such limitations."
I feel you may not fully grasp what the bible is saying about this. It is saying that God actually set out to make humans resemble Him in some ways. Of course, if one assumes God could not achieve such, one might conclude that He is not at all like humans. Many believe He can do truly remarkable things, and managed to incorporate attributes into humans, similar to some He has. You see, it all hinges on what limits one puts on the God one conceives.
No doubt your description applies to something you can generate in your imagination, which you call 'John', but the mere fact that you feel capable of "summing up" a human being through assumptions arrived at by manipulating little "people" in your head, renders you both insensitive to actual humans, and your own presumptuousness.
Clearly I have never called "multitudes" of books unimportant, or indicated that all imaginations are "worthless". Those are extreme and highly speculative components in a illusory internal world of your own construction. You can place all the faith you wish in your ability to understand the real world through such contrived constructs, but this requires a degree of self righteousness which I for one hesitate to indulge in.
In the history of philosophy there has been a debate for millennia. It is really all about TRUE REALITY and our human perceptions and conceptions, ad explanations and understandings of that complex REALITY. Years ago I speculated long and hard about a question: CAN HISTORY EVER BE UNAMBIGUOUSLY BE TRUE AS WRITTEN? From a scientific perspective, can a multidimensional MODEL of any observed complex set of phenomena ever be constructed without error in an ever changing, moving around always universe?
The great philososopher KANT, placed into philossophic literature the notion of "things in themselves." This concept augments the noumenal idea by Liebniz of the 'monad'. In some stuff I have written I have tried to tie the 'Big Bang' physics presumption to the concepts of REAL ENTITY CREATION (like humans and fish and trees and birds) to the logical idea that if there is Evolution (and Involution) there must be connections (correlations) throughout INFINITE TIME among ALL existent 'things'. The 'Big Bang' offers only a starting point: we don't know what banged, and we don't know how 'stuff' ever got to the core of the explosion to 'bang', or what it is, so even the 'Big Bang' is only and efficient CAUSE, NOT a first CAUSE. BUT the THEORY is useful for the human race: known about or not!
The KANTIAN premise revolves around the idea that nothing (especially the 'things-in-themselves') can never be FULLY KNOWN: therefore the description of any event -- simple or complex -- can never be fully represented or described in words or in mathematical formulations. There can never be a perfect explanation for any 'thing or thought'; our explanations must derive from our informed intelligences, imperfect evidence, and guessing (in philosophic terms -- 'speculation'). The usable LOGIC? INFERENCE! There will always be 'movement' and thus, 'error'. Always 'change' and thus the need for INFERENTIAL thought and 'creative' and 'imperfect' TRUTH. NO WAY OUT OF THIS PERMANENT DILEMMA. This truth leaves a lot of room for G_D!
Kant's focus was upon both (1) phenomena, and (2) noumena (outside and inside, materiality and a form of spirituality) in order to deal with the reach for both acceptable TRUTH and for a vision and awareness of the REAL REALITY that we infer lives all around and in us. Since it was the TRUTH (from the reasoning above) that the 'things and thoughts' about and from human beings were unknowable, this makes room for WONDER. WE can with our Mental and Imaginative equipment however, IMAGE and IMAGINE a PERFECTION representing our 'things and thoughts'. Then we can turn to the bounded, finite, imperfections (due to G_D and WONDER) of whatever the 'thing-in-itself' SEEMS to be and come up with a representable MODEL of that observed (but never fully defined and understood) IMPERFECT-TO-US REALITY ( a human being, a bird, fish, history, whatever), and benefit from an expanded view of it without ever really KNOWING IT FULLY. Mystical stuff here! (The finite in the infinite; the infinite in the finite?)
It seems to me, Gary, that your MODEL and the KANTIAN MODEL (based on the concepts of the phenomenal and the noumenal) are very similar. In mathematical statistics we take lots and lots of DATA (which is highly organized) and feed it into multidimensional, non-linear statistical models and GRIND away in ways that try to minimize errors in our presumed explanations (i.e. our MODELS, MAPS). These models are at the heart of efforts to 'pull out of the data' acceptable representations of the TRUTH that we are seeking by the experimentations and the data transformations. We are forever looking for "BEST FITS" of the so-called dependent variable (or collections of them in far more complex SETS of MODELS) to the collection of independent variables. In easier ways to illustrate what I am saying poorly : given an event, what explains it best, given the reliable data we have been able to gather together for investigation?Error REDUCTION is what science is ever seeking! Better finite explanations!
In philosophic terms again we may say that PROGRESS is a function of marshaling the data, getting it into the best possible shape, pushing it through all sorts of possible MODELS (ideas that suggest explanations that are satisfactory, and seeking then to select that MODEL that generates the least residual error between the unknowable 'thing-in-itself' (which we are attempting to understand) and the MODEL in which we use our best phenomenal evidence. In Jerry, Kantian, and Gary terms this brings together both the esoteric and the exoteric (Jerry), the noumenal (mind/soul) and the phenomenal (material/concrete)(KANT) , and the unknowable REAL and the MAP that you, Gary have explained so well in your article to us. The MAP can never be the infinitely complex REAL THING. But is a most useful way to seek ways to PROGRESS in efforts to GROW our human selves with ever expanding consciousnesses.
Dick
There is a problem inherent in attempting to "map" the truth value of theological belief "systems" that can be ignored, but never solved. That is because some concepts of God do not yield any vote at all for human beings. If, for instance, the "elephant in the room" here, loosely describable as the Abrahamic notion of God is valid in the real universe, then the actions and thoughts of humans are immaterial. It wouldn't matter in the slightest if no human at all held beliefs that correlated with such a Being, or if every single person did.
If no such God exists, there may be some potential merit in "mapping" theologies, particularly in regards to comprehending human psychology. One may postulate gods with varying degrees of causal connection with human consciousness, and further value would potentially be yielded by such mapping. But an omnipotent God cannot be made half omnipotent by averaging human beliefs.
Therefore, the introduction of that possibility into the "map" renders the map something other than a tool for "progress" in understanding such a God. It would IN FACT become a detriment to such understanding. This is the "poison pill" which cannot be swallowed by over half the human race.
Sugar coat it all you wish, but my God is not "mappable", by definition.
I am sure I can 'imagine' you at least as well as you can imagine me … we both have nothing more than our life experiences, our vast correspondences on Gather … and in my case at least, spiritual Intuition. Thus I read you as I do, and vice versa. We each respond and act accordingly. You may call me insensitive and presumptuous without even using your 'self righteousness' (purely subjective claim), but you really do not know much of what I speak of, so your opinion about that carries little weight with me.
As for the multitude of books … I do not recall your having ever mentioned anything other than the bible you so defend … the reason for my comment.
So just because you yourself lack the knowing that I have, and thus your inability to release your own ego concept of personal defense, requiring you to attempt a 'put down' of my concept, in no way means that I am presumptuous or 'overly' righteous just because I openly state things the way 'I' see them … I happen to be very 'qualified' to do so … and that just amounts to my not being falsely humble (as would maybe impress you, though I doubt it) and hide my 'light' under a basket. In your case though, based upon your seeming 'vendetta' towards me, it does seem that I often cast pearls in front of the swine … could be my mistake … but I remain eternally optimistic that you will wake up. Meanwhile, as long as you keep attempting to put me down, I will keep pushing your buttons till I get the right one.
Peace … if possible. j.
I only wish that Kant were around to read my book, I bet he would understand. :-)
If that is your perception, it differs vastly from mine, which puts creation withIN God, we are thus (then) all INside of God already ... participating fully, realized or not, with God's Spirit. Thus I see myself as already inside of the 'elephant'.
"I will keep pushing your buttons till I get the right one."
I already told you which "button" I respond to: Rational thought.
And there have been numerous times when I praised you for being rational, and numerous times when we were allied against irrational arguments. You have seen me defend the Constitution, for instance, and you have seen numerous articles written by me which have no connection with theology. And you have heard me say several times that I find some of your thoughts on spirituality insightful.
It's not about "sides" or "buttons" to me Jerry. It's about reason.