Jesus and "Homo rationalis"

[Bill Van Fleet]

Bill,

I'd say you're a wild-eyed optimist and your predictions are loosely (a superlative understatement) related to the entire human experience from known history to today. Perhaps comparing it (the future you see) to how humanity once lived as chimpanzees and changed to a civilized community is appropriate in this respect. How far in the future is your utopia?... will we be zipping around starships at warp speed (etc)?

I surely don't know. It may never happen. It may happen after one or more setbacks. It may happen in just a few generations. But I do know that it will take individuals like you and me advocating to other individuals that they study the issue.

I don't regard the time of Homo rationalis as a Utopia. It seems to me that the term Utopia includes, at least in its connotation, a ridiculous, impossible idea. I think if you read the book, you will find that there is no reason why it cannot come to pass, although the biggest obstacle will be people believing that it is impossible.

It is interesting to speculate on how far the second exponential change will take us. What are the limits of science and technology? Hard to know. But what we have now would have seemed to be wild-eyed optimism a few centuries ago.

Do you have any thoughts about the prediction about their religion(s)?

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[Diogenes]

Our species is dangerously close to enormously escalating our human-induced pain, suffering, disability, and early death. It is becoming increasingly urgent that we come to agreement regarding certain basic existential and ethical propositions. And our beliefs must be accurate. We will kill ourselves by holding onto, till the very end, the postmodern position that agreement is unnecessary, that what is true for you may not be true for me, so let's just talk about something else.

I maintain such agreement is possible, but only if we clear up characteristic problems in our ways of communicating (that lead to unending, nonproductive and often hostile debate) and also dedicate ourselves to those methods of living that foster increasingly accurate belief.

Bill Van Fleet

The only problem with this is that it sounds dangerously close to the dictums of church dogma which it sounds like you were advising us to escape from in order to embrace a more 'rational' Jesus. There is evidence for a rational Jesus in the Gospels, (In the beginning there was the Logos...Father forgive them for they know not what they do) but if we are going to acknowledge him as being a Jewish Socrates why not circumvent the Christian aspect and simply follow Socrates. Paul stated a pretty clear either/or position on this matter and I happen to agree. If Jesus was just another Socrates then Christians are amongst the most miserable of men. We might as well concede that this world is a will to power and nothing else and then get on with the affairs of the day.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

The only problem with this is that it sounds dangerously close to the dictums of church dogma which it sounds like you were advising us to escape from in order to embrace a more 'rational' Jesus.

Could you please quote a sentence of mine that sounds like a dictum of church dogma? I can't imagine that I have said something like that.

There is evidence for a rational Jesus in the Gospels,

What I have said at the beginning of this thread I probably would have to revise. Yes, Jesus wanted us to think rationally, but I have come to learn that such debate occurred routinely between rabbis and students. I now suspect that the reason Jesus used parables was because that was common practice within the religious community. But I believe Jesus did threaten the establishment with some new ideas, and this is what got him killed.

(In the beginning there was the Logos...Father forgive them for they know not what they do)

Yes, I gather one of his main messages was that we should be understanding, not judgemental. And I agree with him.

but if we are going to acknowledge him as being a Jewish Socrates why not circumvent the Christian aspect and simply follow Socrates.

Why not consider what everyone has to offer, and keep trying to benefit from all that have come before us and have tried to make the world a better place?

Paul stated a pretty clear either/or position on this matter and I happen to agree. If Jesus was just another Socrates then Christians are amongst the most miserable of men.

I am missing the logic involved in this conclusion. Please clarify.

We might as well concede that this world is a will to power and nothing else and then get on with the affairs of the day.

"This world is a will to power and nothing else..." Can you not see that this is an example of our ambiguous, metaphoric communication that makes it seem impossible ever to agree on anything? How could this issue be decided? We need definitions, first of all. The statement is certainly one I would never make.

I believe that if you read the book in the order written, you will agree with everything in it. Reading a few paragraphs about what the book is saying is not going to be sufficient, however.

I am Christian in that I come from a Christian tradition more than any other. I think there is room for improvement in all the religions, including Christianity. There certainly is no agreement among Christians yet as to what constitutes optimal Christianity. For my own part, I believe there are some things we can all agree to. The historical Jesus died on the cross because he wanted us humans to change and live a more optimal life. After he died, the mythical Jesus arose and has been with us ever since. The mythical Jesus has been different for different people. It makes some difference how each individual interprets the text of the myth. My mythical Jesus wanted people to be understanding rather than judgemental, and wanted us to be nonhostile, all of which I agree with.

If "God" is what we worship most highly, then I see God as being the best in everything. And it will be important as to what we consider "the best."

If "God" is the explanation that we give for all that we cannot otherwise explain, then I see God as the explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing at all, and why that something, in its totality, is the way it is rather than being some other way. Indeed, although we can develop very accurate models of the way things are, I believe we can never answer the above two questions, and so I don't bother trying. I spend my efforts trying to make the world a better place within my sphere of influence and within the limits of my capabilities.

The fact that we have not yet accomplished all that we need to accomplish in making ourselves better than how we are by virtue of natural selection does not make me at all miserable. Instead, I am grateful that we have come this far, and I want to do my part to help us along. It is really great what is happening on this planet, I think. (This doesn't stop me from feeling bad about certain specific things that happen; it makes me, all the more, want to help.) Please note that my Christianity is not at all threatened by the findings of science.

So, does your Christianity do more for you than mine does for me? I am curious.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It seems to me that the term Utopia includes, at least in its connotation, a ridiculous, impossible idea...

Do you have any thoughts about the prediction about their religion(s)?

Yeah, I do think that your ideas are hopelessly optimistic in the sense of a Utopia, but I don't use that term as a form of ridicule. You're simply doing what most philosophers do - imagining a world where people follow your ideas - and the result is always what we know of as a Utopia (or Republic, from the philosopher's point of view).

Anyway, I see a lot of parallel between your ideas and Christianity, which is why it would be silly for me to ridicule you. We believe that God will correct and redeem human suffering in the eschaton (a metaphysical new world order in 'heaven'), but not to the exclusion of working with other people here in this history.

As for myself, I don't think that we will evolve much farther than where we are now unless we get rid of the state (I actually agree with your new world order business, I just don't foresee it happening). Perhaps everything else that makes us warm and fuzzy will happen after that.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Yeah, I do think that your ideas are hopelessly optimistic in the sense of a Utopia, but I don't use that term as a form of ridicule.

But is this judgement being made on the basis of an adequate study of the reasons for my opinions, as outlined in detail in the book, or is it in response to a few paragraphs that summarize the conclusions?

You're simply doing what most philosophers do - imagining a world where people follow your ideas - and the result is always what we know of as a Utopia (or Republic, from the philosopher's point of view).

In other words, the idea of democracy was just a Utopia from the philosopher's point of view. It could never happen, right? John Locke was just hopelessly optimistic, right?

You talk about people following my ideas. But I say in the book that none of the ideas are mine; they all have been expressed by respected others, and that my contribution is simply selection and organization of such ideas, such as to lead to some important conclusions. Is there anything that I am saying that is really way out? If so, what?

Anyway, I see a lot of parallel between your ideas and Christianity, which is why it would be silly for me to ridicule you.

If such a parallel did not seem apparent, then it would be appropriate to ridicule me?

We believe that God will correct and redeem human suffering in the eschaton (a metaphysical new world order in 'heaven'), but not to the exclusion of working with other people here in this history.

Jesus said that the Kingdom of God was already present, didn't he? Well, I shouldn't offer that, because the Jesus Seminar calls a lot of what Jesus presumably said into question. But there is a significant difference, I believe, between the scenario you just alluded to and the one that I am talking about. In your scenario, there isn't necessarily anything for you to do toward that end. It's all in the hands of God. All you have to worry about is getting into Heaven, by doing good, believing what you are told to believe, or both. In my scenario, the good end result can come about only if you and/or I and/or certain others care enough and put forth work toward the end. If no one does anything, then it will never happen (whether God wants it to or not).

As for myself, I don't think that we will evolve much farther than where we are now unless we get rid of the state (I actually agree with your new world order business, I just don't foresee it happening). Perhaps everything else that makes us warm and fuzzy will happen after that.

Of course you believe as almost everyone does. For clarification, what I am referring to is not evolution in the genetic sense. It is simply getting wiser and wiser, as we did when we devised democracy as an alternative to dictatorship, etc., this being evidence of the early escalation of the third exponential change, as defined in the book. Have you noticed the exponential nature of the spread of democracy? At one time it was just ancient Greece. Now we even have the beginnings of world government. Do you think it is totally out of the question that at some time in the future there will be global acceptance of democracy (some form of it), with everyone recognizing that it is an improvement over dictatorship?

I can't imagine getting rid of the state. We need organization. What I believe can happen is improvement of the state, as is already occurring, as I have noted. See, maybe you cannot accept the idea that there is a chance that what I am talking about can happen because you have other ideas that make improvement impossible, such as that there can be no improvement unless we get rid of the state.

So at any rate, you have the choice of saying that the ideas are hopelessly unrealistic without finding out what they really are in depth, and therefore essentially recommending that others not bother to explore the issue, or of reserving judgement until you have "heard the case" in detail, giving it a chance to be understood. If the ideas are indeed silly, then there is nothing lost either way.... no, I realize that's not true--your time would be lost if it turned out the ideas were silly, and I know you have lots to do, so I do understand why you feel you cannot read the book.

But if you ever do start reading the book (in the order written), I would not want you to read past something that seemed not true, except perhaps for the next few paragraphs, that might help explain. I would want to hear, if I could, an explanation as to why the sentence seemed incorrect.

Do you think there is a tendency for people to avoid and discount optimistic ideas because of not wanting to waste time, but to readily spend time exploring pessimistic ideas? How much opportunity for improvement do you think is lost because of a need to be pessimistic? I don't have a conclusion about this; I was just wondering what you thought.

I appreciate very much your responses and your willingness to dialogue.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[Diogenes]

Could you please quote a sentence of mine that sounds like a dictum of church dogma? I can't imagine that I have said something like that.



What I have said at the beginning of this thread I probably would have to revise. Yes, Jesus wanted us to think rationally, but I have come to learn that such debate occurred routinely between rabbis and students. I now suspect that the reason Jesus used parables was because that was common practice within the religious community. But I believe Jesus did threaten the establishment with some new ideas, and this is what got him killed.



Yes, I gather one of his main messages was that we should be understanding, not judgemental. And I agree with him.



Why not consider what everyone has to offer, and keep trying to benefit from all that have come before us and have tried to make the world a better place?



I am missing the logic involved in this conclusion. Please clarify.



"This world is a will to power and nothing else..." Can you not see that this is an example of our ambiguous, metaphoric communication that makes it seem impossible ever to agree on anything? How could this issue be decided? We need definitions, first of all. The statement is certainly one I would never make.

I believe that if you read the book in the order written, you will agree with everything in it. Reading a few paragraphs about what the book is saying is not going to be sufficient, however.

I am Christian in that I come from a Christian tradition more than any other. I think there is room for improvement in all the religions, including Christianity. There certainly is no agreement among Christians yet as to what constitutes optimal Christianity. For my own part, I believe there are some things we can all agree to. The historical Jesus died on the cross because he wanted us humans to change and live a more optimal life. After he died, the mythical Jesus arose and has been with us ever since. The mythical Jesus has been different for different people. It makes some difference how each individual interprets the text of the myth. My mythical Jesus wanted people to be understanding rather than judgemental, and wanted us to be nonhostile, all of which I agree with.

If "God" is what we worship most highly, then I see God as being the best in everything. And it will be important as to what we consider "the best."

If "God" is the explanation that we give for all that we cannot otherwise explain, then I see God as the explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing at all, and why that something, in its totality, is the way it is rather than being some other way. Indeed, although we can develop very accurate models of the way things are, I believe we can never answer the above two questions, and so I don't bother trying. I spend my efforts trying to make the world a better place within my sphere of influence and within the limits of my capabilities.

The fact that we have not yet accomplished all that we need to accomplish in making ourselves better than how we are by virtue of natural selection does not make me at all miserable. Instead, I am grateful that we have come this far, and I want to do my part to help us along. It is really great what is happening on this planet, I think. (This doesn't stop me from feeling bad about certain specific things that happen; it makes me, all the more, want to help.) Please note that my Christianity is not at all threatened by the findings of science.

So, does your Christianity do more for you than mine does for me? I am curious.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

As far as church dogma goes, I believe that it is the drive to mold uniform minds based on someone's definition of what is acceptable that drives dogmatic thought-and this applies not just to religion. Science has become quite dogmatic in this repect, in my opinion. My own definition for dogma would then be that which discourages thinking ibn general. This is why I would not begrudge your right to follow Jesus or Christianity in any way you see fit, no matter how much I may disagree with you. If the Kingdom of God is within us and the wind blows where it will then it becomes hard to say, "look here" and present Jesus to the world in some kind of uniform manner. As far as what my Christianity has done for me, I always try to turn that question around and look at it from the other end. Jesus, like all the prophets, continually confronts us with what we would rather not think about and rather not do. Faith is a struggle-not a consummation. So my Christianity has troubled, perplexed, vexed, and at times tormented me and that is why I participate in it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But is this judgement being made on the basis of an adequate study of the reasons for my opinions, as outlined in detail in the book, or is it in response to a few paragraphs that summarize the conclusions?

I'm not sure that I'd say "adequate study" in the sense that I read a few choice sources in depth, like the philospohers I've been engaging, but I did give your book a quick read. The summaries - which I read several weeks later - are actually more useful to me. But like I said, I don't have time to misunderstand you. I try to identify what I think are critical elements of your thinking, whether you see them as critical or not is secondary because you're not the best judge of your work.

Do you think it is totally out of the question that at some time in the future there will be global acceptance of democracy (some form of it), with everyone recognizing that it is an improvement over dictatorship?

Yep.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

As far as church dogma goes, I believe that it is the drive to mold uniform minds based on someone's definition of what is acceptable that drives dogmatic thought-and this applies not just to religion.

I agree that it does not apply just to religion. Our beliefs have a great influence on how we feel, and much of what we believe is comforting. A challenge to such belief produces discomfort, which feels like attack, and is responded to similarly. That's why there is so much hostility in these forums.

Science has become quite dogmatic in this repect, in my opinion.

I am somewhat puzzled by this opinion. It seems to me that science is at the other end of the continuum, especially nowadays. I am not referring to political modification of scientific findings, but the freedom within the scientific community to present evidence contrary to majority opinion. Do you have an example?

My own definition for dogma would then be that which discourages thinking ibn general. This is why I would not begrudge your right to follow Jesus or Christianity in any way you see fit, no matter how much I may disagree with you. If the Kingdom of God is within us and the wind blows where it will then it becomes hard to say, "look here" and present Jesus to the world in some kind of uniform manner. As far as what my Christianity has done for me, I always try to turn that question around and look at it from the other end. Jesus, like all the prophets, continually confronts us with what we would rather not think about and rather not do. Faith is a struggle-not a consummation. So my Christianity has troubled, perplexed, vexed, and at times tormented me and that is why I participate in it.

What is the nature of that torment?

My impression of the biggest torment that people are put through by their religions, at least some of them, is the struggle between the wish to believe a required belief as an act of obedience and the wish to have and be seen as having an open mind, in the context that some of the religions require beliefs that are awfully hard to have in this day and age.

Another source of torment comes about by virtue of some of the religions requiring beliefs that things that are natural and inevitable as a part of ourselves are evil and that to have them makes us evil. Occasionally people will talk about having committed the unpardonable sin.

I would refer to some of these sources of torment as "cultural victimization," in which the culture causes individuals to think and behave in ways that cause pain, suffering, disability, and early death, and yet the individuals cannot see that they are victims, since the culture proclaims that such thought and behavior is right.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am somewhat puzzled by this opinion. It seems to me that science is at the other end of the continuum, especially nowadays.

Gadamer taught that science was dogmatic, relying on assumptions of previous scientists, or on their own methodological or epistemological or ontological bias(es). His work Truth and Method undermines the scientific monopoly on truth. People have been blinded by empiricism, but Gadamer points out that there is truth in art that cannot be scientifically reviewed. Art, poetry, and religion speak to us in ways that cannot be described by science.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Van Fleet
But is this judgement being made on the basis of an adequate study of the reasons for my opinions, as outlined in detail in the book, or is it in response to a few paragraphs that summarize the conclusions?

I'm not sure that I'd say "adequate study" in the sense that I read a few choice sources in depth, like the philospohers I've been engaging, but I did give your book a quick read. The summaries - which I read several weeks later - are actually more useful to me. But like I said, I don't have time to misunderstand you. I try to identify what I think are critical elements of your thinking, whether you see them as critical or not is secondary because you're not the best judge of your work.

I believe I am the best judge of what is in what I have written, and also the best judge of whether someone who has read what I have written has come away with what I have tried to convey. I am not the best judge of the validity of what I have written, because I, as others, can be fallible. And that is the benefit of getting responses from others regarding one's own ideas. Also, when I have tried to put what I am thinking into words, that process is quite fallible, such that it is easy for others to misunderstand. And that is another reason for getting feedback from others.

You are obviously trying to convey a message by saying that you do not have time to "misunderstand" me, but I don't know what it is. I understand that you may not have time to devote to trying to understand me. Maybe you are saying that all such efforts are futile. If so, this sounds like a postmodern devaluation of the effort to arrive at agreement. But that may not be what you mean. You are the best judge of what you actually mean.

Quote:
Do you think it is totally out of the question that at some time in the future there will be global acceptance of democracy (some form of it), with everyone recognizing that it is an improvement over dictatorship?

Yep.

Because...?

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I believe I am the best judge of what is in what I have written, and also the best judge of whether someone who has read what I have written has come away with what I have tried to convey.

You're not the only author who believes that, I assure you. :biglaugh:

However, this view is patently false and you should abandon it.

I'm really, really amused by this claim. I'll try to direct you to some philosophy of writing that is a little less arrogant. Man this had me laughing for a long time.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Angellous,

I am puzzled by your response. If you have written a book, are you not the best judge of what is contained in your book, as opposed to someone who has skimmed through the contents? Are you understanding what I am saying? Am I not a better judge than you as to the number of principles of problem solving behavior that are presented in the book?

Just to laugh at what I have written and proclaim it patently false without explaining does not sound to me like a real effort to communicate in behalf of clarification of thought. I value your feedback and hope you will clarify what you are trying to say. You are the best judge of that.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous,

I am puzzled by your response. If you have written a book, are you not the best judge of what is contained in your book, as opposed to someone who has skimmed through the contents? Are you understanding what I am saying? Am I not a better judge than you as to the number of principles of problem solving behavior that are presented in the book?

Just to laugh at what I have written and proclaim it patently false without explaining does not sound to me like a real effort to communicate in behalf of clarification of thought. I value your feedback and hope you will clarify what you are trying to say. You are the best judge of that.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

To be clear - I am amused by your claim to be the best judge of your own work, and not unfairly laughing at everything else. The first response by most authors upon criticism is that they've been read unfairly. I remember talking with internationally known scholars who've told me this when I asked about their critics. They confessed to feeling this way, but had to submit to criticism. Occasionally this is right - some reviews are unfair. But no one believes that they are the best judges of their work, if they are honest with themselves.

Self-honesty can be brutal, but most of the time it's constructive.

EDIT: I'll try to explain it better later. I'm looking for some authoritative source online that would be easily accessible to you. This is the best that I can do now, but some of it might be irrelevant - The Art of Reading

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Angellous,

To be clear - I am amused by your claim to be the best judge of your own work,

But I didn't say that.

Let's have a panel of judges who don't know either of us read my book and construct a multiple choice test as follows:

In Bill's book, which of the following are opinions he expresses? (etc.)

The test is given to you and me. Who is likely to get the higher score?

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous,



But I didn't say that.

Let's have a panel of judges who don't know either of us read my book and construct a multiple choice test as follows:

In Bill's book, which of the following are opinions he expresses? (etc.)

The test is given to you and me. Who is likely to get the higher score?

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

No competent judge would allow you to take such a test, and if you did, your opinions would be worth no more than what is expressed in the book. The book is your test, so your participation would be absurd. A better person to compete with me would be someone else.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

"I believe I am the best judge of what is in what I have written" appears to be the sentence that I wrote that is not being understood in the manner I intended it. I hope my last post clarifies that. I was talking about whether content was or was not present in what was written, not whether that content was valid or not.

And this is probably a good example of what I am also talking about. I know what I meant. I don't think you did. I believe I am a better judge of what I meant than you were. To me, this seems obvious. And indeed your feedback clarifies for me how I was ambiguous.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

No competent judge would allow you to take such a test, and if you did, your opinions would be worth no more than what is expressed in the book. The book is your test, so your participation would be absurd. A better person to compete with me would be someone else.

Angellous, I think you are still not understanding me. The test would be only whether something was in the book or not, not whether what was in the book was of value, valid, etc.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"I believe I am the best judge of what is in what I have written" appears to be the sentence that I wrote that is not being understood in the manner I intended it. I hope my last post clarifies that. I was talking about whether content was or was not present in what was written, not whether that content was valid or not.

And this is probably a good example of what I am also talking about. I know what I meant. I don't think you did. I believe I am a better judge of what I meant than you were. To me, this seems obvious.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

Although you've written something, it's clear that you're not anywhere close to the publishing world. I take this as pretty solid evidence that you've not published anything in any academic journals or talked with serious editors about publishing. Unless, of course, publishing in your field is a vastly different experience than mine (theology/biblical studies/classics/philology). The whole idea behind publishing and editing is review by other people who determine the meaning/value/worth of your work. Your voice is in your book, you've had your say.

More seasoned authors realize that it insults the critics' intelligence if they baselessly say that they've been misunderstood. It's quite easy for authors to simply adjust their work in response to critics, but in changing what they've said, they say something different and admit that the meaning of their work was correctly interpreted by the critics. Such authors are subsequently destroyed.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Angellous,

Although you've written something, it's clear that you're not anywhere close to the publishing world. I take this as pretty solid evidence that you've not published anything in any academic journals or talked with serious editors about publishing. Unless, of course, publishing in your field is a vastly different experience than mine (theology/biblical studies/classics/philology).

Quite a put down!

The whole idea behind publishing and editing is review by other people who determine the meaning/value/worth of your work.

Of course, at least with regard to value/worth. Have you never had the experience of being misunderstood, of being "taken the wrong way"? Communication is very imperfect. You know that, surely.

Your voice is in your book, you've had your say.

But there is the possibility of subsequent dialogue with further clarification.

More seasoned authors realize that it insults the critics' intelligence if they baselessly say that they've been misunderstood.

(Nice put down.) But what if they are not saying it baselessly?

It's quite easy for authors to simply adjust their work in response to critics, but in changing what they've said, they say something different and admit that the meaning of their work was correctly interpreted by the critics.

It seems to me that they could be changing what they have said because:

(a) they realize that they have been ambiguous or inaccurate in how they have presented what they believed, so they try to state what they believe less ambiguously and/or correct the inaccuracies in their presentation of their beliefs.

(b) they realize that they were wrong and that their critics were right, so they now state that they agree with their critics.

Such authors are subsequently destroyed.

My effort is to share, not defeat.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Quite a put down!

I'm sorry that you've read it that way, but I was merely point out that if we had similar experiences with publishers/editors/readers, we'd more than likely share common views.