This topic is frequently discussed on this board. Carl Sagan's views are wonderfully expressed in this youtube video. Wish I would have said it myself.

To me (as Sagan more artfully states it) "GOD" is an ambiguous utterance who's communicative value is ZERO.

https://youtu.be/ML4kiFCKZGo

HH =)

I like how he turns the question around on the questioner, "What do you mean by the word, god?" and sips his coffee as the audience laughs.

When the questioner clarifies, "I don't mean to call it a he, because who knows what god is..."

And Sagan replies, "But calling god an 'it' feels icky doesn't it? We like it to be a He, don't we?....The word, God, covers a an enormous range of ideas, running from the outsized, light skinned, male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne in the sky tallying the fall of every sparrow, for which there is no evidence. If there is some evidence, I'd love to see it. To the kind of god that Einstein or Spinozza talked about, which is very close to the sum total of the laws of the universe. Now it'd be crazy to deny that there are laws in the universe. And if that's what you want to call god, then of course that kind of god exists. Then there's the Deist God, a god who creates the universe, then retires. "

I guess I'm asking you to define yours if you have one.

"Why would we use a word so ambiguous, that means so many different things?"

It gives you freedom to define it....

"It gives you freedom to seem to agree with somebody else with whom you do not agree. It covers over differences. It makes for social lubrication. But it is not an aid to truth and therefore we need much sharper language."

I agree with what Sagan says here and elsewhere.

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” Carl Sagan

He may find such an impersonal "god" (embodying the laws of nature) emotionally unsatisfying or 'icky' but billions of people have long been emotionally satisfied with religions that don't depend upon a personal relationship with an invisible white sky Daddy, like Taoists, Buddhists, Confucianists, Shintoists and many other forms of nature worship that pre-date Monotheism.

Right!... Communicative value, zero!

Unless, like he said, you use a sharper definition of what you mean by the word, god, which has as many meanings as there are humans. I prefer the way Spinoza defined the word, god, in natural terms, not supernatural.
I don't have a problem with the use of the word, 'god' on our currency or in our pledge of allegiance, because I think of it as synonymous with 'good nature', as In good nature we trust. I trust that nature is good, in that it favors, sustains and creates life, despite all the destructive forces in the world, ultimately, they add up to life and consciousness, order, beauty, harmony and simplicity.

"There are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.” Kaku

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god

Thank you for emphasizing my point!

Very well done.

Just because you don't find any meaning in a word, doesn't make it meaningless to others.
Maybe you just don't find meaning in much of anything or life itself. Maybe you're a complete nihlist. I know. I've been there. I was a nihlist too.
So was Francis Collins, who is now a Christian because he needed some hope in his life and there was none to be found, for him, or for me, as a nihlist.
He's not a bad guy, even though he's a Christian.
I'm not a Christian. I'm also more of a Zen Buddhist.
My idea of religion is going to Maui as often as possible to listen to whales mating in Maui Bay, and climbing a volcano and listening to the breath of the Earth speaking in an ancient crater, to what sweet words Pele has to whisper in my ear, before I swim naked in her womb
again

I find all the comfort I need
to bear this otherwise unbearable
black,
smoldering
hole

I don't know why you have such a problem with what I say and no problem whatsoever with what Sagan says,

when we agree 100%.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2021 03:46PM by schrodingerscat.

You say you agree with Sagan, which is fine.

But you do it over and over and over, using way too many of other people's words, with an apparent expectation of a treat for the performance.

Maybe you could make a website, quote all the usual suspects on it and CZ could put a link to the website?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You say you agree with Sagan, which is fine.
>
> But you do it over and over and over, using way
> too many of other people's words, with an apparent
> expectation of a treat for the performance.
>
> Maybe you could make a website, quote all the
> usual suspects on it and CZ could put a link to
> the website?

What are you yammering on about?
Just answer the question.
Where have I ever disagreed with Sagan?
Einstein, yeah.
He didn't accept Quantum Mechanics.
I do.
Not Sagan.
I agree 99.9% of what I've heard him say.
The only thing I disagree with him about is that Nature is emotionally not satisfying.
I find plenty of satisfaction in nature and I'm not alone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2021 03:58PM by schrodingerscat.

I define Spinoza as a good ice cream to have after a nice Italian dinner.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I
> trust that nature is good, in that it favors,
> sustains and creates life, despite all the
> destructive forces in the world, ultimately, they
> add up to life and consciousness, order, beauty,
> harmony and simplicity.

Please, please watch this clip from deGrasse Tyson, your hero. Cold Dodger found it, and if you watch it you should never be tempted again to cite him in support of your pollyannaish nostrums. Moreover if you are honest, you'll reconsider your whole "universe favors life" position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc

NdGT is not an atheist.
He thinks atheists are assholes.
https://youtu.be/I2itlUlD10M

I never said he was an atheist.

Seriously? You NEVER define "God" when you pontificate about the concept.

Sagan would wipe the floor with your undisciplined, inchoate nonsense.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously? You NEVER define "God" when you
> pontificate about the concept.
>
> Sagan would wipe the floor with your
> undisciplined, inchoate nonsense.


I've always agreed with Einstein's god, which is Spinozza's God, which is Sagan's god and Kaku's and Even Richard Dawkin's god, Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius's god, little g, Nature.

Show me one instance where I have disagreed with Sagan or any one of those guys.

Except Einstein, because he lived 100 years ago, when we couldn't find Andromeda, we thought the whole universe was the size of our galaxy. We couldn't see to the Great Attracor.
We hadn't mapped the human genome, we hadn't found the clitoris for Christ's sake! We meaning guys.
Women found it a long time ago, obvioulsy.
DOn't mean to MANsplain the clitoris to you, haha



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2021 03:54PM by schrodingerscat.

Lot's Wife opined:

> Sagan would wipe the floor with your
> undisciplined, inchoate nonsense.


And it seems to me that you proved her point...

"I've always agreed with Einstein's god, which is Spinozza's God, which is Sagan's god and Kaku's and Even Richard Dawkin's god, little g, Nature."

schrodingerscat,

If you wish to discuss your own beliefs about the nature of god, that's just fine. But why don't you leave Einstein, Spinoza, Sagan, Kaku, Richard Dawkins, Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius out of it. You really don't know exactly what they did or did not believe and it all sounds like name dropping.

You don't need to rely on authoritative-sounding names to describe your personal beliefs; you're your own person and can describe your beliefs by yourself.

Thanks,

CZ (admin)

I did.
Like I said, I like Sagan’s definition of the word, the laws that govern nature.
I think it is valuable to be able to reconcile my world view with other cosmologists cosmologies.
Like the Dalai Lama said,”If my beliefs are in conflict with scientific evidence, I need to change my beliefs. I don’t care if it was Buddha himself who said it.”
If only every faith leader shared that attitude. Can you imagine any US Christian or Mormon saying that?

EOD mentioned above your remarkable ability to prove your critics right. As if to underscore that point, you produce the following dialogue.


------------
CZ: "But why don't you leave . . . Sagan. . . out of it.

S-Cat's reply: "I did. Like I said, I like Sagan’s definition of the word, the laws that govern nature."

You thus cite Sagan as proof that you didn't cite Sagan.


----------------
CZ: ". . . it all sounds like name dropping."

S-Cat's reply: "Like the Dalai Lama said,”If my beliefs are in conflict with scientific evidence, I need to change my beliefs. I don’t care if it was Buddha himself who said it.”

Again, you drop two more names to support your assertion that you don't drop names.


--------------
Your disregard for logic is impressive. All we need now is a vulgar reference to women's anatomy to confirm your place in the pantheon of brilliant minds.

Admin is telling me not to quote famous scientists?
WTF seriously?

This is what CZ wrote:

> . . . why don't you
> leave Einstein, Spinoza, Sagan, Kaku, Richard
> Dawkins, Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius out of it.
> You really don't know exactly what they did or did
> not believe and it all sounds like name dropping.
>
> You don't need to rely on authoritative-sounding
> names to describe your personal beliefs; you're
> your own person and can describe your beliefs by
> yourself.

What part of that is unclear?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I've always agreed with Einstein's god, which is
> Spinozza's God, which is Sagan's god and Kaku's
> and Even Richard Dawkin's god, Epicurus and Marcus
> Aurelius's god, little g, Nature.
>
> Show me one instance where I have disagreed with
> Sagan or any one of those guys.

Okay. You say you have never disagreed with any of those guys.

Prove that they agreed. Show us where Aurelius embraced Relativity. Because if they didn't agree, you cannot logically agree with both.

The only realm in which they agree is your mind.


--------------
> DOn't mean to MANsplain the clitoris to you, haha

Stay classy.

>Except Einstein, because he lived 100 years ago, when we couldn't find Andromeda, we thought the whole universe was the size of our galaxy

When do you think Andromeda was found?

Einstein died in 1955. He was certainly aware that Andromeda (and lots of other stuff) was outside of our galaxy.
If he thought that the Milky Way was the whole universe, he wouldn't have needed to create his cosmological constant.

Should have said to reject his cosmological constant. If everything were in the Milky Way, then he could have rejected the expansion of the universe.

Been a long day.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Except Einstein, because he lived 100 years ago,
> when we couldn't find Andromeda, we thought the
> whole universe was the size of our galaxy
>
> When do you think Andromeda was found?
>
> Einstein died in 1955. He was certainly aware that
> Andromeda (and lots of other stuff) was outside of
> our galaxy.
> If he thought that the Milky Way was the whole
> universe, he wouldn't have needed to create his
> cosmological constant.

"A century ago, the “universe” was defined as the Milky Way galaxy. Heretics who disagreed had long been ridiculed— until science staged what became known as the Great Debate, on April 26, 100 years ago. On that date, American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis articulated opposing views on the scope of the cosmos."

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/astronomy-great-debate-island-universe-milky-way

I know. I posted that link in response to your other thread on the issue.

But how do you conclude that Einstein didn't know that the universe extended beyond the Milky Way? That was determined in the 1920s. In the early 1930s, Einstein abandoned. his cosmological constant because he then accepted that the universe was expanding.

So your statement "Except Einstein, because he lived 100 years ago, when we couldn't find Andromeda, we thought the whole universe was the size of our galaxy." is nonsense.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know. I posted that link in response to your
> other thread on the issue.
>
> But how do you conclude that Einstein didn't know
> that the universe extended beyond the Milky Way?
> That was determined in the 1920s. In the early
> 1930s, Einstein abandoned. his cosmological
> constant because he then accepted that the
> universe was expanding.
>
> So your statement "Except Einstein, because he
> lived 100 years ago, when we couldn't find
> Andromeda, we thought the whole universe was the
> size of our galaxy." is nonsense.


No. It's not.

"A century ago, the “universe” was defined as the Milky Way galaxy. Heretics who disagreed had long been ridiculed— until science staged what became known as the Great Debate, on April 26, 100 years ago. On that date, American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis articulated opposing views on the scope of the cosmos."

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/astronomy-great-debate-island-universe-milky-way

You are misconstruing the article by ignoring such passages as

"Actually, the island universe [that there are universes outside the Milky Way] idea had been a popular explanation for the nebulae in the mid-19th century. (American astronomer Ormsby MacKnight Mitchel coined the “island universe” label in the 1840s, a translation from a German article referring to the nebulae as Weltinseln.)"

and

"But during the first two decades of the 20th century, new astronomical observations raised doubts" about the notion that the Milky Way was the universe.

and

"Technically, the topic of the debate was to be on “the distance scale of the universe.” On that issue, Curtis was the conservative and Shapley was the heretic." Curtis believed that the Milky Way was too small to encompass the whole universe--meaning that there were other galaxies out there.

and

His opponent, Shapely acknowledged that that might be true. “If the galactic system is as large as I maintain, the spiral nebulae can hardly be comparable galactic systems,” Shapley declared. “If it is but one-tenth as large, there might be a good opportunity for the hypothesis that our galactic system is a spiral nebula, comparable in size with the other spiral nebulae, all of which would then be ‘island’ universes of stars.”

and conclusively

"Everybody knows that Curtis was also right: The Milky Way — home to sun, Earth and humankind — is not a single universe unto itself, but one of a myriad upon myriad of other galaxies — no longer known as island universes, as the definition of “universe” had to be changed."


------------
So your characterization is therefore wrong. The notion of a multi-galaxy universe was present in the 1840s and still had a significant scientific following at the turn of the century. Then new discoveries rendered the multi-galaxy universe even more likely, with even its critics acknowledging that it might be correct.

You know what the problem is? You didn't read, or you read but did not comprehend, anything beyond the first paragraph. [|] is correct. In 1920 a lot of scientists reckoned that the universe was much more expansive than the Milky Way and included a much larger number of galaxies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2021 01:52AM by Lot's Wife.

Sagan isn't trying to be profound here. He's intentionally trivializing the word, eliminating the implied divinity and supernaturality of it, and rendering it benign by equating it to nature.

It's a definition in complete opposition to the one that is commonly accepted, the one that includes the expected divine characteristics.

One can claim to "believe in Sagan's God" in a much more straightforward fashion by simply stating, "I follow natural laws." But that's not near as fun a statement to repeatedly needle into your victim's ears while pretending to be more profound than you really are, is it?

Carl Sagan on drugs:

"[Cannabis] amplifies torpid sensibilities and produces what to me are even more interesting effects.

“The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before, The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high sometimes carries over to when I’m down. This is one of many human frontiers which cannabis has helped me traverse.”

Which is all a very pretentious way of saying he was a pothead.

Do you mean to imply that his statements are not to be trusted because he's a "pothead", and therefore surely must be prone to all the common stoner stereotypes, or do you present this as evidence to contrast the stereotypes, given that Sagan was clearly an accomplished scientist, author, and entertainer?

The Colonel is pretentiously implying he is more insightful than Sagan. More colonial too, though comparing colons is a fraught endeavor.

I think he was right about Marijuana.
If it were legal everywhere we probably wouldn't have an opioid crisis. There's no way it should have ever been put on schedule I with heroin, meth and acid.
It's a crime that it's still on Schedule I.
The war on drugs is really just a war on minorities.

There are no experts on deity.

So what someone as an expert in one field says about what deity might or should be is just blind opinion. And I don't put any weight or value to such opinion. To do so is to commit the appeal to authority fallacy.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are no experts on deity.
>
> So what someone as an expert in one field says
> about what deity might or should be is just blind
> opinion. And I don't put any weight or value to
> such opinion. To do so is to commit the appeal to
> authority fallacy.

Exactly. We all get to define the word god how we want.
Some people believe in Santa Claus in the sky for adults.
Let 'em.
Most of those people believe they'd turn into phycho canibal rapist killers without God, so which would you rather have, a bunch of serial killers or a bunch of people who go to church every Sunday and pay their taxes like they pay the church their tithes?
That's why Christianity became a state religion and it's been working great towards that end ever since.
Why screw it up by convincing people to be Atheists or Nihlists?
That didn't work out very well in China, or the USSR, or North Korea, Germany or Cuba, or Cambodia, or Venezuela, the sad list goes on.
It's no skin of my back if people believe in a Judeo Christian God.
But that's a false dichotomy.
There are not only two choices.
It's not all or nothing.
There are socialist, countries, like Scandanavia, all of Northern Europe and most of Asia, that's extremely secular, and healthy. They don't have near the problem we have in the US with crime and disease and people are free to believe whatever they want, until they piss off a Muslim and get their heads lopped off, like Theo Van Gogh or Ayan Hirsi Ali.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Exactly. We all get to define the word god how we
> want.
> Some people believe in Santa Claus in the sky for
> adults.
> Let 'em.

Endorsing self deluded fantasy as a panacea?

> Most of those people believe they'd turn into
> phycho canibal rapist killers without God, so
> which would you rather have, a bunch of serial
> killers

Premise very much not in evidence.


> Why screw it up by convincing people to be
> Atheists or Nihlists?
> That didn't work out very well in China, or the
> USSR, or North Korea, Germany or Cuba, or
> Cambodia, or Venezuela, the sad list goes on.

This has been routinely debunked and shown to be unrelated to atheism. That you continue to endorse it sho lack of education on the matter and confuse correlation with causation.

Why is there a need to define something that doesn't exist?

It exists as a word in the English language, which we use to communicate ideas. In order to communicate those ideas we need to communicate their meaning, how we define them. I think Einstein was clear about what he meant by his use of the word, god, laws governing nature or, the way of nature.
What Einstein was talking about was similar to the Ancient Greek stoic concept of Logos, the divine reason permeating and animating the Cosmos.
Greek Logos, translates into Chinese as Tao, the way of Nature.

Can you show a greek to chinese or chinese to greek dictionary that corroborates this claim?

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you show a greek to chinese or chinese to
> greek dictionary that corroborates this claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao#Christian_Interpretations

"In some Chinese translations of the New Testament, λόγος (logos) is translated with the Chinese word dao (道) (e.g. John 1:1), indicating that the translators considered the concept of Tao to be somewhat equivalent to logos in Greek philosophy and the Logos in Christianity."

The original Greek version of the Bible said in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God. The Logos was God."

The two are interchangeable in the Bible, God and Logos.
That was mistranslated into English to say, "In the Beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God."

Which completely changes the meaning of that verse.
To the ancient Greeks, especially the Stoics, Logos was much more than, "the Word" it was the divine reason that permeated and animated the cosmos. Kind of like the God Particle, the Higgs Boson.

That word is translated into Chinese in that context as Tao, or Dao, the Way of Nature.

"The Way of Nature" is what Einstein meant when he used the word, "God"

As in "I want to know the mind of God. The rest is just details." or "God does not roll dice with the universe."

But that's where he was wrong, because he refused to accept quantum mechanics, even though he laid the groundwork for quantum physics with his theory of relativity.
God, the rules of nature, do play dice with the universe, all the time on a quantum level. Only the dice affect each other over a long distance and they are affected by our observation of them. We affect the outcome of the god damned dice.

The book you cite, Zheng, was written in 2017 and says that when Christianity entered China and Chinese Christians were trying to understand the word "logos," some of them saw parallels to "Dao." In other words, you are taking the word of some Christians about what Laotzu meant 2,000 years earlier. Do you not see the problem with that?

And again, you have in the past cited a single instance in which a translation of the bible into Chinese employed the term "Dao." You are basing your argument on an anomaly. That you like the anomaly does not render it credible--as witnessed by the vastly greater number of translations that avoid that mistaken interpretation.

Also that this particular usage of Tao and Logos is driven by a faith agenda and unreliabe.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> To the ancient Greeks, especially the Stoics,
> Logos was much more than, "the Word" it was the
> divine reason that permeated and animated the
> cosmos.


this is false reasoning on a couple of issues. What Logos was to the Stoics is not demonstrated to be at all what Logos meant to the Author of John. There is no evidence that the Author of John was a stoic nor that the text of John is intended to be read through a stoic lens. Nor do you show that this was the common usage of the Logos at the time of authorship. This is just some of that self-deluded fantasy of belief you espouse.


> Kind of like the Higg's Boson...

This is a non-sequitir you use to update the pantheism of the stoics to modern times, to attach their wisdom to your fantasy. The general concensus of stoic use of Logos was reason, and that reason permeated the universe. The only way to make your claim non-sequitir is if you are arguing that reason is a quantum field.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The only way
> to make your claim a non-non-sequitir is if you are
> arguing that reason is a quantum field.

Fixed that for you.

As for whether reason is a quantum field, I think the answer is "well, yes and no."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2021 02:05AM by Lot's Wife.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What Einstein was talking about was similar to the
> Ancient Greek stoic concept of Logos, the divine
> reason permeating and animating the Cosmos.

No, Einstein was not a Stoic.


---------------
> Greek Logos, translates into Chinese as Tao, the
> way of Nature.

This is a compound proposition. It is wrong in two senses. First, logos does NOT translate into Chinese as Tao. Of the scores, nay hundreds, of translations of the Daodejing, you found one where the translator chose "logos" and ignore the fact that everyone else disagreed. The words are NOT interchangeable.

Second, the word "Tao" does not mean "the way of Nature." Quite the opposite: nature is one of several manifestations of a much broader and deeper impulse. You keep insisting that fruit is a type of apple rather than that an apple is a sort of fruit.

Thanks for setting us straight on Tao. Fact is, I personally have passed through Taos, New Mexico, and I don't remember seeing even one Chinese person. I don't think I even saw a greek.

The Chinese people heard you were coming and hid.

I love how arrogant you are that you think you are the only one who can possibly understand what the Tao means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

Laozi in the Tao Te Ching explains that the Tao is not a "name" for a "thing" but the underlying natural order of the Universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe due to it being non-conceptual yet evident in one's being of aliveness.

https://www.amazon.com/Lao-Tzus-Tao-Te-Ching/dp/0473370786

Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching: The Way of Nature and The Way of People

You gotta love it.

--------------
> I love how arrogant you are that you think you are
> the only one who can possibly understand what the
> Tao means.

I assure you that I have read the book from cover to cover many times and in many version. I have also read the variant copies like that found 40 or so years ago in a cave in Dunhuang, the one in which the title of the book is reversed to Dedaojing. Do you know the philosophical significance of that reversal? Do you know the other differences between the various versions and what they mean for the "canonical" text?

I am quite comfortable asserting you have not read either the Daodejing or the Dedaojing or the other variants from cover to cover. I am also confident you have never taken a university course in Taoism or read the commentaries. I also know, from your uncharacteristic silence, that you have never read the Zhuangzi, which is the better definition of Taoism, let alone the Liezi.

So no, I am not alone in having a pretty good understanding of Taoism and Laotzu. There are many people who have read all the different texts and done deep research on those topics. It's just that you are not one of them.


--------------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
>
> Laozi in the Tao Te Ching explains that the Tao is
> not a "name" for a "thing" but the underlying
> natural order of the Universe whose ultimate
> essence is difficult to circumscribe due to it
> being non-conceptual yet evident in one's being of
> aliveness.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it appears that you just sent us to wikipedia to understand Taoism. For your interest--I'm sure you're interested--that sentence is a garbled version of the second stanza in the first chapter of the Daodejing. It arises in none of the other chapters, so the author of that wiki article was written by someone who, like you, may well have failed to get past that first page.

As for "non-conceptual," what he really means is Wuwei. Do you understand the concept Wuwei?


--------------
> https://www.amazon.com/Lao-Tzus-Tao-Te-Ching/dp/04
> 73370786
>
> Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching: The Way of Nature and The
> Way of People

Woah! Did you just cite an Amazon ad to indicate your profound understanding of Taoism?

I thought so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2021 01:11AM by Lot's Wife.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching: The Way of Nature and The
> Way of People

Excellent! There's a reason the author of that book is not taken seriously in the field. The words "Way of Nature" and "Way of People" do not appear in any version of Laotzu's book.

Seriously, do you really think someone whose other books include The Threat of Bilateral Climate Change; Think Smarter with Nemonik Thinking; Global Warming is the Solution; The Basics of Nemonik Mindpower; and Education Kills Humanity is an expert in classical Chinese philosophy?

What does she say in her autobiographical sketch?

"My life started during the devastation of World War II. As a teenager, I worked as a carpenter and studied building engineering at night school. During the seventies, I became a financial manager for a multinational corporation, ran my own business, and studied economics in my spare time. My interest in the psychology of management extended to the interaction between the mind, body, and reality. In 1980, I immigrated to New Zealand where I obtained a doctorate in psychology from the University of Auckland. My mission is to make people the smartest thinkers they can be, which has led me to the development of nemonik thinking."

Can you show me where in there she claims any familiarity with modern, let alone classical, Chinese? How about any profession to having taken a course in Chinese philosophy?

Here's the book. She gives it out for free.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AO4lHsIsSKJEiaE&cid=F3ECC488F5E7F9B2&id=F3ECC488F5E7F9B2%21313&parId=F3ECC488F5E7F9B2%21348&o=OneUp

The bottom line, S-Cat, is that if you are going to drop names, drop ones that make you look good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2021 01:13AM by Lot's Wife.

They both exist as words in the English language...

Since we started recording the invention of God, there have been some 25,000. I suppose the fact that in 2021 we still have the latest and greatest God du Jour proves the concept of "safety in numbers." Easier to get rid of cockroach infestations than the belief in God.

Gods. Some give you 70 virgins. Some give you a harp. Some give you membership in an exclusive club. In times gone by they may have had animal heads or used thunder to make a point. They rewarded you for your sacrifice. A virgin in the volcano was a great gift. But even better was giving half your crop to whoever said they represented your god. Or even better just give them hour daughter.

The ultimate proof that man invented God and not vice versa is that the attributes given to said God evolve with humankind's needs and current agendas. And you can be sure he is there wanting to reward you, because somebody who claims to speak on his behalf said so.

God is a business like any other.

I didn't watch the video but was very entertained by this post. Thanks.

I watched the video, AND was entertained by the thread. My initial point has been reinforced. We have a diverse crowd here, full of smartasses, intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, and happy spiritualists. All in search of peace, happiness, and truth.

May we all find what we seek.

HH =)

EB, at the risk of doing a minor S-Cat I am going to repost the the link I posted above.

It's only five minutes and is a hilariously insightful demolition of the notion that the universe favors life. Moreover, it is by deGrasse Tyson, yea even S-Cat's bodisattva and spiritual guide, the new generation's Carl Sagan. I invite* you to partake.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc




*Please read this use of "invite" in the Q15 sense: "command on pain of eternal damnation."

RESPONSE: In this video, deGrasse trivially points out that with respect to both the Universe as well as the Earth, there are properties (and of course places) that are manifestly NOT conducive to life. But such observations--however passionately and rhetorically made for their entertainment value--demonstrate a fundamental failure (intentional or otherwise) to understand just what the anthropic principle is about; namely that the "laws" of the universe are "fine-tuned" such as to be conducive for the existence of life and intelligence. (Anywhere it might be found, including on Earth!)

As usual deGrasse is both shallow and dogmatic in his thinking. (a bad combination that creates entertainment value at the expense of communicating true understanding) Here are a couple of quotes from more prominent cosmologists opining on this issue. I have chosen them from dozens in my database because of their relative clarity and simplicity:

"If almost any of the basic features of the universe, from the properties of atoms to the distribution of the galaxies, were different, life would very probably be impossible. Now, it happens that to meet these various requirements, certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in the underlying laws of physics that regulate the universe, so stringent in fact that a bio-friendly universe looks like a fix -- or a "put-up job," to use the pithy description of the late British cosmologist Fred Hoyle."

(Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the universe just right for life?, 2006)

"If we were to base our opinions on only the things that I've explained so far, opinions would be mixed, even among those who are open to anthropic ideas. Most of the individual fine-tunings needed for life are not so very precise that they couldn't just be lucky accidents. Perhaps, as physicists have always believed, a mathematical principle will be discovered that explains the list of particles and constants of nature and a lot of lucky accidents will prove to be just that: a lot of lucky accidents. But there is one fine-tuning of nature that I will explain . . . that is incredibly unlikely. Its occurrence has been a stupendous puzzle to physicists for more than half a century. The only explanation, if it can be called that, is the Anthropic Principle." [Referring to the value of the Cosmological constant]

(Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, 2006, p.10)

Susskind makes it clear that the anthropic principle is not about a dispute between science and religion, but within science itself. Thus, deGrasse Tyson is disingenuously making it about religion, leaving the false impression that cosmologists are united on this issue, and that there is no problem or controversy within science; which is simply false!

"[T]he present argument is not between religion and science but between two warring factions of science -- those who believe, on the one hand, that the laws of nature are determined by mathematical relations, which by mere chance happen to allow life, and those who believe that the Laws of Physics have, in some way, been determined by the requirement that intelligent life be possible. The bitterness and rancor of the controversy have crystallized around a single phrase -- the *Anthropic Principle* -- a hypothetical principle that says that the world is fine-tuned so that we can be here to observe it!"

(Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, 2006, p. 14)

I should add that neither Davies or Susskind are religious, and indeed this issue is very controversial within science. Most cosmologists avoid the issue by subscribing to a multiverse theory in which case the AP is dissolved by postulating multiple universes.

Finally, I suggest you reserve the use of the words "hilariously insightful" for matters of which you have some knowledge. This seems to be a problem generally for people on the Board, who like deGrasse Tyson are more interested in cheap rhetorical humor than facts.)

> Finally, I suggest you reserve the use of the
> words "hilariously insightful" for matters of
> which you have some knowledge.

That's ironic coming from the man who insists against all evidence that brain function cannot be localized to specific parts of that organ, rejects evidence incompatible with his presumptions, and lies about his background and then pretends he was joking.

If there's one thing you have proved beyond doubt on RfM, it is your lack of intellectual or moral integrity.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESPONSE: In this video, deGrasse trivially
> points out that with respect to both the Universe
> as well as the Earth, there are properties (and of
> course places) that are manifestly NOT conducive
> to life. But such observations--however
> passionately and rhetorically made for their
> entertainment value--demonstrate a fundamental
> failure (intentional or otherwise) to understand
> just what the anthropic principle is about; namely
> that the "laws" of the universe are "fine-tuned"
> such as to be conducive for the existence of life
> and intelligence. (Anywhere it might be found,
> including on Earth!)
>
> As usual deGrasse is both shallow and dogmatic in
> his thinking. (a bad combination that creates
> entertainment value at the expense of
> communicating true understanding)

You gathered all that from a 5 minute video that was clearly part of a presentation tuned to a specific audience? I'm not sure what you were watching, but what I saw didn't seem to be intended as a deep discussion on the pros and cons of the anthropic principle. In fact it was clearly a dig at "intelligent design", which is a different, non-scientific, proposal all together. You could guess what side of the anthropic principle "debate", he's on, but just because he didn't address what you thought he should have doesn't mean he lacks understanding. And of course Tyson is often shallow in his presentations; they're largely intended to create interest amongst the non-scientific. The fact that he can craft his messaging to a wide audience speaks ultimately to a certain amount of depth, not shallowness.

>Here are a
> couple of quotes from more prominent cosmologists
> opining on this issue. I have chosen them from
> dozens in my database because of their relative
> clarity and simplicity:
>
> "If almost any of the basic features of the
> universe, from the properties of atoms to the
> distribution of the galaxies, were different, life
> would very probably be impossible. Now, it
> happens that to meet these various requirements,
> certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in
> the underlying laws of physics that regulate the
> universe, so stringent in fact that a bio-friendly
> universe looks like a fix -- or a "put-up job," to
> use the pithy description of the late British
> cosmologist Fred Hoyle."
>
> (Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the
> universe just right for life?, 2006)
>
> "If we were to base our opinions on only the
> things that I've explained so far, opinions would
> be mixed, even among those who are open to
> anthropic ideas. Most of the individual
> fine-tunings needed for life are not so very
> precise that they couldn't just be lucky
> accidents. Perhaps, as physicists have always
> believed, a mathematical principle will be
> discovered that explains the list of particles and
> constants of nature and a lot of lucky accidents
> will prove to be just that: a lot of lucky
> accidents. But there is one fine-tuning of nature
> that I will explain . . . that is incredibly
> unlikely. Its occurrence has been a stupendous
> puzzle to physicists for more than half a century.
> The only explanation, if it can be called that,
> is the Anthropic Principle."
>
> (Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, 2006,
> p.10)
>
> Susskind makes it clear that the anthropic
> principle is not about a dispute between science
> and religion, but within science itself. Thus,
> deGrasse Tyson is disingenuously making it about
> religion, leaving the false impression that
> cosmologists are united on this issue, and that
> there is no problem or controversy within science;
> which is simply false!

Again, Tyson was making a dig at "Intelligent Design", which is entirely about religion and fundamentally unscientific. Also, I noticed nowhere in the video where he claimed or otherwise inferred that cosmologists are united on the issue of the anthropic principle.

>
> "he present argument is not between religion and
> science but between two warring factions of
> science -- those who believe, on the one hand,
> that the laws of nature are determined by
> mathematical relations, which by mere chance
> happen to allow life, and those who believe that
> the Laws of Physics have, in some way, been
> determined by the requirement that intelligent
> life be possible. The bitterness and rancor of
> the controversy have crystallized around a single
> phrase -- the *Anthropic Principle* -- a
> hypothetical principle that says that the world is
> fine-tuned so that we can be here to observe it!"
>
> (Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, 2006, p.
> 14)
>
> I should add that neither Davies or Susskind are
> religious, and indeed this issue is very
> controversial within science. Most cosmologists
> avoid the issue by subscribing to a multiverse
> theory in which case the AP is dissolved by
> postulating multiple universes.

In spite of the ongoing scientific debate, the associated implications for religion can't just be thrown out as if they don't exist. I suspect that there's quite a bit of overlap between cosmologists who are both believers and supporters of the anthropic principle. I'd suspect that the overlap is much smaller for cosmologists who are believers and dubious of the AP. And vice versa for nonbelieving cosmologists.

As far as AP is concerned, in my shallow opinion the biggest indicator that it's not ready for prime time is that there are philosophers heavily involved and interested in the discussion. This is appropriate and expected for unsettled matters. But invariably, as a science becomes more established and accepted, the philosophers tend to wander off and find something else to talk about.

>
> Finally, I suggest you reserve the use of the
> words "hilariously insightful" for matters of
> which you have some knowledge. This seems to be a
> problem generally for people on the Board, who
> like deGrasse Tyson are more interested in cheap
> rhetorical humor than facts.)

Tyson's ability to use "cheap rhetorical humor" as well as understand and teach serious science has won him a lot of awards. But maybe you don't like a good joke?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *Please read this use of "invite" in the Q15
> sense: "command on pain of eternal damnation."

Watched. Made me want to start smoking wacky tobaccy again. I'm with Sagan on somethings. I just never mention it because I don't want to encourage some here.

Understood.

ETA: two points.

First, as I stated when I first provided the link to that clip, I did not cite it as evidence against intelligent design. I do not buy ID since it requires an independent judgment that there is a God, a proposition for which I find inadequate evidence. But in the present context, the ID debate is irrelevant.

My purpose was to demonstrate the absurdity of S-Cat's insistence that a universe in which life is a rounding error, and entropy an immutable law as surely as gravity, favors life. That is empirically absurd. The only way out of the conundrum is to assert, to believe, in the existence of a Creator standing outside of the universe and overruling natural laws, which S-Cat does not do. My point was that without a personal and volitional God, the evidence indicates that life is spontaneous and destined sooner or later to go away.

Second, while I don't know your beliefs I am comfortable with the use of the word "God" to indicate the majesty of the universe. Where my quarrel with S-Cat arises is over his incessant repetitiveness and his assertion that so many different scientists and philosophers mean the same thing when they use the word. To put the point simply, the Taoists opposed education and science because they distorted human nature and drove people away from their emotional core--a fact which renders it impossible for those Taoists to agree with Spinoza or Einstein or Sagan among others.

And by the way, did I mention that none of the Taoist classics refer to a supreme being or use the word "God," a term which did not even exist in the Chinese language at the time? There were "shen," meaning the spirit of an individual tree or a waterfall; but when Christianity entered East Asia two millennia later, the Jesuits and their rivals had to create their own term "Tianshang" and, in Japan, to differentiate between "shen (pronounced "kami" in Japanese) and "Kamisama," meaning essentially super-kami or super-shen. But there was no "God" in China when Laotzu lived there.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2021 01:49AM by Lot's Wife.