Again I state I see no "intuitive process"
Of course not: it's not visible.
I see cultural inheritance and habitualised behaviour. The proof for me I have expressed at length on this thread and elsewhere.
Just a minor technicality, friend Tao: this "proof" that you see has no bearing on the central thesis of faith pespective -- i.e., the validity of a G-d concept.
You would be corrrect to question the merits of faith-based applications, as you have done. However, since the Divine is not included in your frame of reference, it follows that you must judge these applications strictly on the basis of human standards of conduct.
Human applications of faith are, after all, merely human. They can be expected to be very imperfect because that's kinda how we are. However, you seem to think they have a significance that transcends human imperfection. Indeed, you sometimes switch levels of analysis and confuse historical, institutional, or cultural aspects of religion with intuitive, intrapsychic aspects. In this confusion, you sometimes drift off into a line of argument that roughly amounts to saying that human imperfections are proof that G-d does not exist. In fact, you have come right out and said as much.
To my way of thinking, it makes no sense to me to conclude that the Creator must be so imperfect that he cannot possibly exist if he has allowed human to run amuck in His name. It certainly makes no sense without showing that Creation directly implies somethig about the Creator. So here you have made a rather significant logical leap.
Without the Creator-Creation connection developed, there is no reason to believe that critiques of the human realm have implications regarding the validity of a G-d concept. As I see it, if G-d had created humans perfect, they would never have a chance to appreciate the sublime evolutionary attainment of growing toward of G-d.
Let's go back to the issue of "proof" for a second. I don't feel religionists owe it to atheists to make a case for their faith. Maybe you do. But if you're going to insist on evidence, it is important to be clear about burden of proof. Example from Post 159:
Quote:"Since you weren't there, to suggest it was all just hallucination seems a bit daft. "
Since you were not there it is a bit daft to argue it was anything other?
No daftness over here, Tao. I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other. You did take the position that it was all an hallucination. I was merely pointing out that your conclusion about religion as being purely figmentary is unsubstantiated by the premise you have adduced.
I also notice you throw in stuff about motivation. In this case you mix it up with questionable matters of fact and questionable generality:
"As for metaphors, what is your objection? In a sense, except for very precise scientific discourse, language tends to be rather metaphorical and abstract." ...because these metaphors as used are not truly presented as such, but as hard fact. It is the dishonesty I object to.
Who exactly presents metaphors as hard fact? You claim to have proof about "cultural inheritance and habitualised behaviour," but you cite no data. In fact, I notice you tend to substitute imagery and characterization where where you need facts. The suggestion that metaphors "are not truly presented as such" is also unsubstantiated because you have not shown there to be any dishonesty with respect to the use of metaphors. In other words, your conclusions involve at least several layers of assumptions.
On the subject of metaphors. I'd think it would be fair to say that poetic/mythological/anthropocentric language comes naturally to humans. This tendency doesn't necessarily involve any intent to deceive. I think you're merely being cynical when you explain things religious in terms of devious intent. I assume it 's just and and parcel of your effort to promote a negative bias just by adding vivid highlights of evil here and there.
In conclusion, I'm not sure you appreciate the evidentary considerations we discussed previously. Also, it's hard to avoid the impression that you're merely malligning religions and religionists as a kind of recreational game. I'm fine with games, but the rules should be clear at the outset and everyone should be able to agree on those rules.
The evidentiary quagmire persists. I think it's because you might be playing the wrong language game. Example: "Nice try Netti but none of what you say stands up to scrutiny." When one speaks in terms of positions "standing up to scrutiny," this ordinarily implies that fact claims can be supported on factual grounds. Other than with regard to some fairly superficial and tangential historical, institutional, or cultural aspects, empirical proof is simply of no interest in relation to matters of faith. So why would you draw conclusions about the adequacy of my post based on some marginally relevant criteria?
As we have discussed already. a "Reasonable Doubt" standard isn't very useful either since we are dealing with personal faith, hopes, and commitments. A while back you've conceded that an empirical analysis of the validity of a G-d concept is not an option because disconfirmability is logically impossible. That is, it's not possible to disprove the exsitence of G-d or to know G-d completely and exactly enough to where we can evaluate and confirm all of His Divine traits and powers and thereby validate the G-d concept.
In addition it's also not possible to disprove people's relationship with the Divine or the sense of ultimacy and meaning they get from their faith. I would say that in your ongoing efforts to generalize broadly, you may have lost appreciation for the fact that many personal affirmations of faith are so personal and emotionally complex that the implicit notion of a common denominator for all matters of Faith that holds across all possible samples of religious people is really an extraordinarly daft oversimplification in itself.
Further, I also diagree with the tacit assumption that pervades your arguments that all religions can be decribed in a unitary way, as though they all have the same kind of credibility problems having to do with political corruption. So far you have been very general about this and have neglected to provide much of an overview with specific examples for different religious faiths. The ones you did provide were easily countered with a more complete rendering of historical/biographical fact, as for example when you tried to cast aspersions on the Prophet Muhammad. He was not just a warlord, but that's all you had to say about him. This kind of obvious selectivity leave you open to all kinds of accusations.
There are many kinds of cynicism. I'm glad you don't have the kind that combines hatred for hypocrisy with disdain for virtue. I think you're on the right track even if I disagree with your conclusions. The only thing I'd watch out for is the possible deception about never accepting anyone's judgment about anything except your own. This type of solipsistic thinking has epistomological as well as social consequences -- mainly because most everyone else believes their point of view is the right one.
