Hegemonicretribution
24th January 2006, 18:35
I just lost my entire post due to a crash, so apologies if this rehash has any obvious omissions.
After further study of various classical, and more obscure religions arguments for the existence of god I have made some interesting observations. The vast majority of accepted "proofs" of god's existence make no justification for that which is often attributed to such a conception. There is often a god of the gaps which is called upon, or some vague conception of reality where a logical imperfection has the notion of god brought in to maintain coherency, but little else.
I since discovered a notion of dual understanding of common in most major religions. There is one religion existing for the masses, prescribed by the church, and one for the elite philosophers at the centre of the churches understanding of god. Most of the teachings of religion have little to do with what is considered god by the elite, rather these are popular fictions perpetuated as a control over the masses. These popular fictions, if you will, are the aspects of religion that we consider reactionary. They are not seen as a true representation of any particular go, rather a reproduction of popular opinions of the time, god acting as a mandate in this case for their exercise.
The actual arguments of the existence of god do not make any such reference to any of these elements, and actually fail logically when reconciliation is attempted. The nonsensical trash offered by the church is not often even an address of the understanding of the elites, rather an abuse of their power as an institution of the day.
The arguments for the god of the elites are not perhaps great, but are acceptable to some degree as arguments, even more so when you take into account when they were conceived. The arguments for the god offered to the masses have never been successful, because they never had to be. The religious were not encouraged in the development of analytical minds, and it was often considered diametrically opposed to worship, which in a way it was.
I am not justifying religion, just trying to show how I now view it, on two levels. The church orientated mandates and teachings have and never will make sense, and this will remain inherently reactionary where it is opposed to non-reactionary behaviour. However the philosophical arguments do not necessitate the general view of what is only one (albeit it the vast majority) perception of religion.
The elitist nature is attributed to the churches, who have in the past prevented (in the case of Christianity) the general viewing of the bible for fear of individual interpretations. The book is now generally availible, although it has not normally been any work of reference for those creating the intellectual god of these religions. It has been used only as a text untowards the uninitiated. Access to or tolerance of certain modes of thinking has only ever been amongst a minute elite at the top of these religions who were trying to better understand reality, the rest has been a con employed to maintain the order of society, or change it to the will of those in charge.
I apologize if this post seems a little sub-par, but I lost the pre planned version in a crash as earlier stated. Any views?
After further study of various classical, and more obscure religions arguments for the existence of god I have made some interesting observations. The vast majority of accepted "proofs" of god's existence make no justification for that which is often attributed to such a conception. There is often a god of the gaps which is called upon, or some vague conception of reality where a logical imperfection has the notion of god brought in to maintain coherency, but little else.
I since discovered a notion of dual understanding of common in most major religions. There is one religion existing for the masses, prescribed by the church, and one for the elite philosophers at the centre of the churches understanding of god. Most of the teachings of religion have little to do with what is considered god by the elite, rather these are popular fictions perpetuated as a control over the masses. These popular fictions, if you will, are the aspects of religion that we consider reactionary. They are not seen as a true representation of any particular go, rather a reproduction of popular opinions of the time, god acting as a mandate in this case for their exercise.
The actual arguments of the existence of god do not make any such reference to any of these elements, and actually fail logically when reconciliation is attempted. The nonsensical trash offered by the church is not often even an address of the understanding of the elites, rather an abuse of their power as an institution of the day.
The arguments for the god of the elites are not perhaps great, but are acceptable to some degree as arguments, even more so when you take into account when they were conceived. The arguments for the god offered to the masses have never been successful, because they never had to be. The religious were not encouraged in the development of analytical minds, and it was often considered diametrically opposed to worship, which in a way it was.
I am not justifying religion, just trying to show how I now view it, on two levels. The church orientated mandates and teachings have and never will make sense, and this will remain inherently reactionary where it is opposed to non-reactionary behaviour. However the philosophical arguments do not necessitate the general view of what is only one (albeit it the vast majority) perception of religion.
The elitist nature is attributed to the churches, who have in the past prevented (in the case of Christianity) the general viewing of the bible for fear of individual interpretations. The book is now generally availible, although it has not normally been any work of reference for those creating the intellectual god of these religions. It has been used only as a text untowards the uninitiated. Access to or tolerance of certain modes of thinking has only ever been amongst a minute elite at the top of these religions who were trying to better understand reality, the rest has been a con employed to maintain the order of society, or change it to the will of those in charge.
I apologize if this post seems a little sub-par, but I lost the pre planned version in a crash as earlier stated. Any views?