Why would gods use cultural diffusion?

[an anarchist]

It can't be, though. Perhaps they were completely wrong about the Gods, but they weren't monotheists in a Christian sense. I never ever, ever understand this Christian-centric view that all other Gods are just representations of the Christian God. It serves no purpose I can discern except allow for various philosophical questions around how God chooses to reveal himself to be 'answered'.

The cosmic battle that Zoroastrianism describes, I think is parallel to what the Bible teaches. It is not a traditional orthodox Christian view that they could be the same God, but some views it is allowed. If a Christian allows for His God not to be omnipotent, then they can synthesize it with Zoroastrianism

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Which would go back to us and computers.

Anyway, how would you or I know this is a better methodology? How would we know in another 1000 years this would work better and for what plan?

We do know that it would have worked for mankind up until now and into the foreseeable future.

Those are very good odds.

 

[dybmh]

Here:

Ah. So,

"Try to imagine it. Your child's birthday cards are always perfect, vs, your child's birthday cards are aĺlways improving. Which is better? As I said, it's subjective."

I was saying always improving is better, imo.

If you're saying it's objective and perfection is better than improvement, I simply don't agree. I've provided examples: the birthday card, the calculus class repeated twice, the special Olympics athlete. In each of these most people, I think, would agree that the improvement or overcoming obstacles are more important than the achievment itself. Do you have refutation for these examples? Do you have counter examples of your own which are more convincing?

 

[Koldo]

Ah. So,

"Try to imagine it. Your child's birthday cards are always perfect, vs, your child's birthday cards are aĺlways improving. Which is better? As I said, it's subjective."

I was saying always improving is better, imo.

If you're saying it's objective and perfection is better than improvement, I simply don't agree. I've provided examples: the birthday card, the calculus class repeated twice, the special Olympics athlete. In each of these most people, I think, would agree that the improvement or overcoming obstacles are more important than the achievment itself. Do you have refutation for these examples? Do you have counter examples of your own which are more convincing?

Getting back to what I was asking you:

What do you mean by 'Your child's birthday cards are always perfect'? What do you mean by 'perfect' on this sentence? How are you measuring this? What do you mean by 'perfection' in 'perfection is better than improvement' ?

 

[firedragon]

We do know that it would have worked for mankind up until now and into the foreseeable future.

I dont understand. Who do you refer to as "we", and when you say "it would have worked" what do you mean by "it"? Also, when you say "would have worked" and you say you know, what ever it is, how do you know? Please be kind enough to clarify.

 

[firedragon]

I am not sure what the problem is then...

No problem.

 

[firedragon]

Why do you ask? Doesn’t this problem exist with cultural diffusion as well?

Honestly, from my perspective, I don't know if cultural diffusion is a problem. As far as I know, a fair amount of the English language has been imported. E.g. algebra (Arabic), anatomy (Greek), bagel (Yiddish), barbeque (Taíno), boondocks (Filipino Tagalog) catamaran (Tamil), coyote, poncho (Spanish) dynamite (Swedish) medicine (Latin) safari (Swahili) tycoon (Chinese) vogue (French) yogurt (Turkish) etc. But you know this. I dont see this as right or wrong. I see it as a subject.

 

[dybmh]

Getting back to what I was asking you:

What do you mean by 'Your child's birthday cards are always perfect'? What do you mean by 'perfect' on this sentence? How are you measuring this? What do you mean by 'perfection' in 'perfection is better than improvement' ?

The perfect card would be legible, neat, a little funny, a little sweet. No spelling errors. There would be something personal, maybe an anecdote from the previous year. My postive qualities would be acknowledged. Maybe it would rhyme... etc.

I'm a little surprised you need me to explain what it means for a birthday card to improve year to year. I'm guessing you don't have kids; but, can't you remember what it was like making birthday cards as a child?

Anyways, I suppose you could take the qualities I listed above and improve on them year to year. Imagine a birthday card written by a 3 year old in their pre-school class compared to a birthday card from a 20 year old. If the birthday card didn't improve year to year it would be as if the 20 year old had written it each year. The card wouldn't reflect all the imperfections that happen when a toddler attempts to make a birthday card.

So, what I'm saying is, something would be lost, imo, if the birthday card did not improve year to year and instead looked as if a 20 year old had written it each year. It's fun to see how the writing changes and the complexity changes, how the humor matures, etc... One wouldn't see that if each card was perfect all along, from the very beginning.

 

[Meow Mix]

On what basis would something else be better? You're assuming a goal of your own as the goal of God and the human race.

Well, is the goal of a holy text to be read and understood by people: to transmit information to them?

If so, then the cultural diffusion method has several drawbacks:

• As mentioned in OP, cultural diffusion tends to get region locked by cultural borders; so we see the information disseminated geographically: you have to be lucky to be born in the culture to have a high chance of receiving the information.
• Cultural diffusion risks alteration and mistranslation, sometimes needing to debate on what parts of the text are canon or not.
• Cultural diffusion is slow: it spreads slowly in time (as it depends on the culture carrying the text to expand and diffuse), it requires for either people to be literate or for a class of people whose job it is to read and disseminate the information from the texts to everybody else (which then becomes prone to their interpretations), etc.
• The amount of religions spread through cultural diffusion can be confusing to an unsure person: why choose this one instead of that one, or why not just take up the closest geographical one as many people do?

These are fairly serious problems with this method of information dissemination. Direct dissemination would avoid every problem with cultural diffusion.

If the dissemination of information is not the goal, then it raises the question of why the texts and prophets exist at all in the first place.

Perhaps only a particular region of people is all God is aiming for, that would be one answer to why God would choose such an inefficient and geographical method. If a person's afterlife depends on believing the text or not, though, that would be rather grotesque and monstrous of such a god to do, though.

 

[Meow Mix]

Honestly, from my perspective, I don't know if cultural diffusion is a problem. As far as I know, a fair amount of the English language has been imported. E.g. algebra (Arabic), anatomy (Greek), bagel (Yiddish), barbeque (Taíno), boondocks (Filipino Tagalog) catamaran (Tamil), coyote, poncho (Spanish) dynamite (Swedish) medicine (Latin) safari (Swahili) tycoon (Chinese) vogue (French) yogurt (Turkish) etc. But you know this. I dont see this as right or wrong. I see it as a subject.

Cultural diffusion does eventually get around, but surely you can agree it's not the most efficient method of information transmission?

 

[firedragon]

Cultural diffusion does eventually get around, but surely you can agree it's not the most efficient method of information transmission?

Whats the better method and whats the yardstick?

 

[Meow Mix]

Whats the better method and whats the yardstick?

Direct dissemination. If the purpose of a holy text and a prophet is to get information to people, God could literally just give that information to people. For religions with an omnipotent being, God could simply will it be so, and every newborn would know everything God wants them to know that God would otherwise try to tell them through the sloppy system of prophets and texts.

It avoids the knowledge being locked culturally (such that where you are born largely determines which holy text you're likely to believe), it avoids mistranslations, it avoids people having to get together and decide which books are canon for the holy text, it avoids multiple different holy texts floating around in different cultures since everyone would have access to the same knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

Direct dissemination.

Computers right?

 

[Meow Mix]

Computers right?

If you want to call brains computers, sure. An omnipotent being could just will me to know how to build a truck and I would then have the knowledge to do so. Omnipotent beings can just give people knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

If you want to call brains computers, sure. An omnipotent being could just will me to know how to build a truck and I would then have the knowledge to do so. Omnipotent beings can just give people knowledge.

So you think this is the choice am omnipotent being as you say should make? Do you understand choice?

 

[firedragon]

If you want to call brains computers, sure.

I am not saying brand are computers sis. You are suggesting humans should have been computers.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Why is it more impressive if it leads people to doubt, for instance? Isn’t that the opposite of giving important information?

That seems to be the point.:

As in the words of Lao Tzu:
Tao Te Ching. Verse 41.


"Higher people hear of the Tao, they diligently practice it.

Average people hear of the Tao. They sometimes keep it and sometimes lose it.

Lower people hear of the Tao, they laugh loudly at it.
If they do not laugh, it would not be the Tao".

 

[Meow Mix]

So you think this is the choice am omnipotent being as you say should make? Do you understand choice?

I'm not sure what you're asking or insinuating here. Can you rephrase?

I am not saying brand are computers sis. You are suggesting humans should have been computers.

No, I'm saying that an omnipotent being could give people knowledge directly with their brains still working the same they already work.

If God wills it, I could be sitting here and all of a sudden I could know the complete works of Shakespeare verbatim. Theists claim God has given us knowledge all the time (e.g. such as our moral compasses).

 

[Meow Mix]

That seems to be the point.:

As in the words of Lao Tzu:
Tao Te Ching. Verse 41.


"Higher people hear of the Tao, they diligently practice it.

Average people hear of the Tao. They sometimes keep it and sometimes lose it.

Lower people hear of the Tao, they laugh loudly at it.
If they do not laugh, it would not be the Tao".

Most religions have a similar line about how foolish the unbelievers are. What then?

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure what you're asking or insinuating here. Can you rephrase?

You see, you are talking about choices God has to make. Its not that simple. Or at least, its too simplistic to ask this question.

Ill tell you what. Consider William Glassers psychology on choice, and please think of how choice would apply to God who is defined as a necessary being.