The Alternative to Theism is not Atheism but Modernism.
Dev Carter
======================================
Traditionalism of which theism is perhaps an essential part is not
challenged by atheism but by modernism. Theism postulates a near perfect
knowledge as 'revealed by God' a set of 'universal' rules that if followed
are purported to create the 'ideal' state of peace and harmony. Experience
shows that such 'ideals' are unattainable, a theist system might produce
some harmony but not complete harmony. Its presuppositions are not in
accordance with reality, as the environmental circumstance tend to
eventually change to ones dramatically different to those initially
envisioned by the creators of theist doctrine. So the problem for theism is
to deal with an ever growing number of 'exceptions' that theism cannot
contain, by pragmatic means or by extensions of the theist doctrine. In the
extreme state, theism self destructs as ritualism sets up the destructive
positive feedback loops that makes the theist system completely unworkable.
Totalitarianism and theocracy are alike in their absolutism and both have
been found to be unstable systems.
Modernism is based upon a three valued logic, God and all unknown abstract
entities and forces are theoretical constructs whose truth is
'indeterminant'
until such time as improvements in technology extends our perceptions, or
they 'manifest' themselves at some latter time. Thus the modernist skirts
the
issue of 'God' and then deals with the functional issues conceptually and
experimentally to find the most cost effective functional solution to any
particular problem.
The trend towards modernism can be seen in how the modern ring road
intersection has replaced the old traditionalist solutions for cross
intersections.
1.. Traditionalist: Rigid fixed rules defined by theist or traditionalist
authority structures that attempts to achieve an ideal state.
Examples: Policeman directing traffic, then traffic lights, then stop signs
and give way signs etc.
2. Modernist: Experimental rules designed to approach optimum
efficiency based upon a realist knowledge system.
Example : Ring road replaces cross intersection with simple rule: 'Yield to
approaching vehicle already on the loop before entering.'
3. Libertarian system: No rules and no guides for anything.
Example: Intersections before there was any signage at all.
The reason that Atheism can never become an alternative to theism is that
while the rule structures of theism are not workable indefinitely and
eventually become irrational, atheism provides no alternatives. Modernism
offers an approach for creating 'rules' that make sense, by a devolvement of
power back to individuals as 'guides' to action. Atheism would tend towards
an ad hoc libertarianism at best, and nihilism at worst, both of which have
been proven to be little threat to 'theist' inspired traditionalist rule
makers.
Dev Carter
Brisbane
27/05/02
Sir Frederick
>
> The Alternative to Theism is not Atheism but Modernism.
>
> ======================================
>
> Traditionalism of which theism is perhaps an essential part is not
> challenged by atheism but by modernism. Theism postulates a near perfect
Good thesis, however you leave out major aspects of religious practice,
perhaps showing that you are not yet a Modernist, but still a Medievalist.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"The mind is a pattern making machine."--S. J. Gould (1996)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
Sects, sects, sects...is that all you monks ever think about?
Immortalist
Dev Carter <dev.c...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3cf236df$0$2523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> The Alternative to Theism is not Atheism but Modernism.
>
The alternative to Theism was created by human awareness of liberty and
freedom. These emulated ideals were implemented in constitutianal contracts.
These contracts left religions behind by incorperating the ammendment
process. Over time the social contracts changed to accomadate realistically
the evolution of social reality an advancing technologies. Religions did not
keep a sufficient pace of adaption, hence thier formal division from the
direction of nation-state developmental processes. Modernism may have been
an "necessary" condition but only when combined with constitutionalism and
other necessary conditions were these factors "sufficient" for the current
relation of religion/state and social conditions.
Michael Greaney
>
> ======================================
>
> Traditionalism of which theism is perhaps an essential part is not
> challenged by atheism but by modernism. Theism postulates a near perfect
> knowledge as 'revealed by God' a set of 'universal' rules that if followed
> are purported to create the 'ideal' state of peace and harmony.
No they don't. They purport to create a state that would be better
than if the rules weren't followed.
> Modernism is based upon a three valued logic, God and all unknown abstract
> entities and forces are theoretical constructs whose truth is
> 'indeterminant'
> until such time as improvements in technology extends our perceptions, or
> they 'manifest' themselves at some latter time. Thus the modernist skirts
> the
> issue of 'God' and then deals with the functional issues conceptually and
> experimentally to find the most cost effective functional solution to any
> particular problem.
In other words, modernism is agnostic. Hence, according to your
argument, agnosticism is the alternative.
Michael Greaney
Dev Carter
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yaho.com> wrote in message
news:uf4ncbb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dev Carter <dev.c...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3cf236df$0$2523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > The Alternative to Theism is not Atheism but Modernism.
If you are talking about 'choice' as process then we are talking about
'reality' in the modernist sense. If you are talking about 'choice' as some
metaphysical aspect of human existance then you have not yet escaped the
dualism of theist ideology and are trying to maintain its 'idealistic'
aspects in a sanitized form. Modernism would assert some causal
deterministic relationships : If X then Y not the theist inspired : If X
then Y or Z depending upon some metaphysical 'free-will' to push the
metaphysical lever in either direction towards X or towards Y. The idea of
social contracts of some 'group will' I find to be pure 'reification', and
typical of elitists who like to stack the deck in one direction but claim it
to be the 'universal' 'will' of the people. A 'will' that has put them in
charge and delegated to them whatever power is needed to rule on everybody's
behalf. This is theism by committee rather than theism by ancient
enlightened one who received God's word. The idealistic projections of
'committee' theism with its self serving fictions for creating and
maintaining heirachy.
The interesting thing about theism is how it deals with chaos and the
conditions not predicted by traditional theist dogma. The purists seem to
treat it as an external 'evil' that yet needs to be controlled or
erradicated, the reformers as, in part, the 'evil' within, - a failure of
the system to operate according to its own principles, and the revisionist
by trying to bring it up to date by selective upgrades. I haven't read
enough of Chomsky yet to know whether he would claim to be a realist or a
reforming theist. Can anyone suggest any other of the so called 'public
intellectuals' I should catch up on, from the various 'schools' of thought.
Dev. Carter
Brisbane
27/05/02
Dev Carter
"Michael Greaney" <m.gr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:562a2d5b.02052...@posting.google.com...
> "Dev Carter" <dev.c...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3cf236df$0$2523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > The Alternative to Theism is not Atheism but Modernism.
> >
> > ======================================
> >
> > Traditionalism of which theism is perhaps an essential part is not
> > challenged by atheism but by modernism. Theism postulates a near perfect
> > knowledge as 'revealed by God' a set of 'universal' rules that if
followed
> > are purported to create the 'ideal' state of peace and harmony.
>
> No they don't. They purport to create a state that would be better
> than if the rules weren't followed.
followed, but not
necessarily better if the notion of 'rule' was understood objectively as in
a moderist treatment and our ideas were reformulated accordingly.
>
> > Modernism is based upon a three valued logic, God and all unknown
abstract
> > entities and forces are theoretical constructs whose truth is
> > 'indeterminant'
> > until such time as improvements in technology extends our perceptions,
or
> > they 'manifest' themselves at some latter time. Thus the modernist
skirts
> > the
> > issue of 'God' and then deals with the functional issues conceptually
and
> > experimentally to find the most cost effective functional solution to
any
> > particular problem.
>
> In other words, modernism is agnostic. Hence, according to your
> argument, agnosticism is the alternative.
No modernism is a new paradigm, it can talk about the idea of God and theist
values as 'attitudes', as biological or psychological realities but it would
not talk about any metaphysical dimension that atheism denies, and
agnosticism cannot make up its mind about. It talks about a one dimensional
reality and leaves other dimensions beyond the scope of modernism. Because
it is an open system of knowledge it can talk about things or forces
expected to be part of the material or physical dimension but yet not within
the extended power of our technologies for measurement or experimentation.
These 'theoretical constructs' help guide the direction of future research
and experimentation but the theory that they exist within would initially be
regarded as hypothesis. Even when established by future experimentation and
research, modernist theory makes a lesser claim to 'truth' than does logic
or traditional theism, it is always a 'provisional truth'. This maintains
the 'open' character of modernist knowledge, a creative knowledge system
capable of infinite growth, revision, and refinement. (Other things being
equal, particularly a modernist survival of the impending theist chaos and
catastrophy.)
Dev. Carter
Brisbane.
27/05/02
>
> Michael Greaney
Immortalist
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yaho.com> wrote in message
> news:uf4ncbb...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Dev Carter <dev.c...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3cf236df$0$2523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > The Alternative to Theism is not Atheism but Modernism.
>
> If you are talking about 'choice' as process then we are talking about
> 'reality' in the modernist sense.
Did modernism start with the Industrial City and the factory and the move
from rural to urban existence? Or when you say modernism do you mean
anything this side of the Middle Ages starting with modern philosophy like
Descartes.
Democracy has been concieved since before Christ especially in Plato but
Social Contracts and it's offspring Constitutionalism came way before the
Industrial Revolution and it's offspring Modernism. Modernism = Machine
Whorship in essence then came to be a bunch of other stuff like machine art
movements and machine philosophies.
> If you are talking about 'choice' as some
> metaphysical aspect of human existance then you have not yet escaped the
> dualism of theist ideology and are trying to maintain its 'idealistic'
> aspects in a sanitized form. Modernism would assert some causal
> deterministic relationships : If X then Y not the theist inspired : If X
> then Y or Z depending upon some metaphysical 'free-will' to push the
> metaphysical lever in either direction towards X or towards Y. The idea
of
> social contracts of some 'group will' I find to be pure 'reification', and
> typical of elitists who like to stack the deck in one direction but claim
it
> to be the 'universal' 'will' of the people. A 'will' that has put them in
> charge and delegated to them whatever power is needed to rule on
everybody's
> behalf. This is theism by committee rather than theism by ancient
> enlightened one who received God's word. The idealistic projections of
> 'committee' theism with its self serving fictions for creating and
> maintaining heirachy.
>
Well you got a better choice than group will with restraints upon tyranny of
the majority clauses in constitutional contracts. So you can explain the
replacement system that will work better? I am interested. Totalitarianism
or Authoritarianism, how about Tribalism which one are you for? Or should we
go with the the group will but set some kinds of reforms so the interest
groups and corperations dont have as much influence?
> The interesting thing about theism is how it deals with chaos and the
> conditions not predicted by traditional theist dogma.
I thought Theists were trying to live with the chaos without letting it
bother them. Again I am confused about what you are talking about,
modernism -theism....
> The purists seem to
> treat it as an external 'evil' that yet needs to be controlled or
> erradicated, the reformers as, in part, the 'evil' within, - a failure of
> the system to operate according to its own principles, and the revisionist
> by trying to bring it up to date by selective upgrades.
Who treats chaos as an external evil and what do you mead by chaos,
disorganization or are you refering to non-linear dynamics?
> I haven't read
> enough of Chomsky yet to know whether he would claim to be a realist or a
> reforming theist. Can anyone suggest any other of the so called 'public
> intellectuals' I should catch up on, from the various 'schools' of
thought.
>
Ya, catch up on some serious modernism in art
http://www.intac.com/~ralphv/3stooges/csf.htm
Are you talking about art
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/modernism.html
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=modernism
this subject is to big, the links are only for the art connection, but the
philosophies of modernism are deep and wide, which you mean. You don't mean
post-modernism do you?
Dev Carter
> Well you got a better choice than group will with restraints upon tyranny
of
> the majority clauses in constitutional contracts. So you can explain the
> replacement system that will work better? I am interested. Totalitarianism
> or Authoritarianism, how about Tribalism which one are you for? Or should
we
> go with the the group will but set some kinds of reforms so the interest
> groups and corperations dont have as much influence?
Modernism is about real knowledge of reality and thereby understanding
processes by which it might be altered or changed. While modernism has been
embraced by the physical sciences and in the development of technology it
has been strenuously resisted in the humanities, law and traditional
institutions of government as something dangerous and threatening.
Western anglo-saxon traditionalism has been devastating to the ethnically
marginalized groups in Australia such as Aboriginal communities. Very high
death rates, drug abuse etc, and imprisionment, and suicide rates. The
existing system would seem to offer them neither economic intergration nor
'tollerance' at their psychological reactions to marginialization with high
rates of drug use, violence, etc.
Modernism would enable all groups to 're-empower' themselves by a
re-examination of their reality and how they might wish to change it. It is
challenging but personal re-empowerment is just possible when one has a
clear understanding of the existing condition. What works for one individual
may not work for another, or for a group etc. Modernism offers an
experimental approach to dealing with the 'chaos' that preoccupies
traditionalism. A 'good' drugs strategy is one that mitigates the quantity
and severity of its damaging effects. The traditionalist mindset is that any
breach of the rule of 'no' to proscribed drugs, opens the floodgates to
proselitization of 'their' children to drugs. The approaches of
institutionalized 'moralism' has patently failed, modernism replaces the
prescriptive 'good' of theist inspired traditionalism with a practical
'good'. The value to society is thus placed upon the 'efficiency' of the
solutions trialed to achieve a desired outcome. Of course the terrorfying
fear of traditionalists everywhere is that eventually 'good' might question
the existing power structure. Thus they resist change for as long as is
possible. So long as the 'chaos' is not their problem. But eventually they
see that the 'chaos' is like typhoid-something that cannot indefinitely be
ignored, something that can hurt them. So they agree to a public health
service and sanitation system to mitigate and erradicate such diseases. When
traditionalist have to check the external strontium 90 levels for the day,
along with the weather report, they will be more favorable disposed toward
alternatives to militarism. Modernism provides a means for resolving most of
our so called 'problems' when traditionalism has failed.
Dev. Carter
Brisbane
29/05/02
Resijinth
> while the rule structures of theism are not workable indefinitely and
> eventually become irrational, atheism provides no alternatives. Modernism
> offers an approach for creating 'rules' that make sense, by a devolvement of
> power back to individuals as 'guides' to action. Atheism would tend towards
> an ad hoc libertarianism at best, and nihilism at worst, both of which have
> been proven to be little threat to 'theist' inspired traditionalist rule
> makers.
The basis in the correctness of any system is, as always, based on its
epistemological roots. For example, we can easily proove that there is
no creator of existence, since for there to be a creator there must
necessarily be existence, otherwise the creator doesn't exist.
Furthermore, people don't CREATE rules. We didn't create the law of
inertia, or the law of gravity, or the law of relativity. We didn't
create biology, or thermodynamics, or quantom mechanics. We DISCOVERED
them, and clarified the concepts by determining the relations between
events.
It's best, then, to use reasoning, and other methods of cognition, to
FIND the rules, and know that we did not create them. This also
requires that we experiment to determine the relations between events.
>
> Dev Carter
>
> Brisbane
>
> 27/05/02
-Resijinth
Dev Carter
> The basis in the correctness of any system is, as always, based on its
> epistemological roots. For example, we can easily proove that there is
> no creator of existence, since for there to be a creator there must
> necessarily be existence, otherwise the creator doesn't exist.
Traditional theism would posit a two dimensional universe that has both a
physical or material dimension and a metaphysical dimension. While the
material dimension may be created and destroyed by the supreme force of the
metaphysical dimension called 'god', human knowledge of the metaphysical has
been revealed by god selectively to the prophets etc but not universally.
Thus theism is a belief system is that is impervious to ordinary 'proofs',
either for or against. The importance of theism is not what it asserts but
its function.
The function of theism is psychological and cognitive - to provide a mindset
that de-objectifies reality or thought about the physical or material
dimension, actifying and transfering thought to the alternative 'moral'
psychological dimension. Modernism's function is to understand not only the
processes of theism and its function for control but also to 'de-moralize'
and objectify reality and relate the chaos of concern to ordinary people
(crime, terrorism, war,drugs etc) back to the material or physical
dimension.
If you have a dental problem you go to your dentist, not to a practioner of
voodoo. If you have a genuine desire to understand the 'why' of the chaos,
you learn to practice modernism. The new superpowers that will emerge in
coming centuries will be modernist as efficiency will give them a clear
advantage over traditionalism. I think of perhaps China here. The reason
that voodoo or any form of traditionalism is still practiced is that it
still has adherants -some beneficiaries.
> Furthermore, people don't CREATE rules. We didn't create the law of
> inertia, or the law of gravity, or the law of relativity. We didn't
> create biology, or thermodynamics, or quantom mechanics. We DISCOVERED
> them, and clarified the concepts by determining the relations between
> events.
While their may be 'Laws', I don't believe modernist thinking would close
the mind or shut the gate on any revision of existing knowledge.
Assumptions, facts and theoretical constructs are always open to review, so
all 'truth' at this level is provisional truth, so I can't see how anyone
would be wise to assert a 'law' about anything, as a desert traveller might
be unwise to assert that visual observation was proof of 'water'.
Scientific 'truth' will always be something less than logical truth.
>
> It's best, then, to use reasoning, and other methods of cognition, to
> FIND the rules, and know that we did not create them. This also
> requires that we experiment to determine the relations between events.
I would say find 'relationships' of a causal or statistical nature and use
such knowledge to generate theory that might help to find futher evidence of
'relationships'. But whether such relationships revealed are 'rule' like
will always be open to question.
Dev Carter
Jay Vogelsong
> The basis in the correctness of any system is, as always, based on its
> epistemological roots. For example, we can easily proove that there is
> no creator of existence, since for there to be a creator there must
> necessarily be existence, otherwise the creator doesn't exist.
It may certainly be true that the existence of the world depends on some
other sort of existence, the existence of something which preceded it,
something which itself exists. However, a creator, or some other
absolute, which exists outside of time and space is usually posited to
avoid the infinite regress of universes creating universes. The other
alternative, to say the universe popped out of nothing, is not really
satisfying intellectually. One is almost forced to acknowledge, at the
minimum, the preexistence of certain laws which regulated such an
occurance. Again, one still has to have *some* form of existence
preceding existence to make a coherent picture IMO.
zobicus
> Resijinth wrote:
> > The basis in the correctness of any system is, as always, based on its
> > epistemological roots. For example, we can easily proove that there is
> > no creator of existence, since for there to be a creator there must
> > necessarily be existence, otherwise the creator doesn't exist.
> However, a creator, or some other
> absolute, which exists outside of time and space is usually posited to
> avoid the infinite regress of universes creating universes.
This creator which "exists outside of time and space" is a confusing
concept. I would have to posit the following. How can anything exist
outside of time and space?
Obviously this creator would have thought processes, to envision
things to create. These processes take place over periods of time.
So there's your time.
As far as space, in order to effect anything within the "regular
universe" (i.e. creation) this creator has to form some type of
connection to the "regular universe". A connection that allows for
creation. Next I put forth that this connection does not connect to
this entire "alternate universe", but to the part that contains the
creator. So, there's your space.
Another way to argue this, is that existence anywhere is still
existence. It doesn't matter what form of place this creator takes
residence. The creator still exists. So the creator didn't create
existence unless they created themself. Which is illogical, and a
very strange proposition.