I
I am glad that you are still interacting in my thread. I certainly don't want this thread to fizzle out, even if I start a new one. Unfortunately, I sometimes feel that this forum is a bit like a market, with new and brighter offers.

I did read some of the book, 'Thinking Fast and Slow,'by Kahneman, but I seem to have only downloaded part of it, but I am sure I will read it in full at some point. In the meantime, I love the title because I think that our culture, and this forum is in favour of the fast, at a risk of losing the slow. I think I am more of a slow thinker, although I definitely have my fast moments, and I do believe that this is a slow topic as it is one for contemplation.

So, even if I do start other threads I hope this one survives because I believe that it has scope for many explorations yet. I am a bit disappointed that many of the original contributors have dropped out and I do blame fast thinking and a wish for instant, smart answers. But, sometimes older threads get resuscitated or resurrected and I do wish to continue this one, even if not many are involved in the discussion.

I rarely join a thread that is more than 3 pages, and unless I am having a one on one discussion as you and I, and Metaphysician Undercover and myself have had, I do not continue with a thread. Like if I am posting and no one is replying, I am gone because it seems pointless to post if I don't get feedback.

There are different things going on here. If there are already many post, I am not going to read through all of them. The discussions move far from their original topic or maybe someone already said what I think is important or made an argument that proves my thought wrong. It is like coming into the classroom at the end of the period.

There is the fast and slow thinking, and also, our minds are fickle! We can tire of a subject quickly or get distracted by another one. Most people would rather have a fresh piece of bread than a stale one.

Then there is, do we feel ignored or valued? I am gone if I am ignored.

I think many new starts may be better than one long thread. So many topics come up and I would make different threads for each one, to keep things organized, but I get overwhelmed when I attempt too much thinking, so I have not started new ones. Slow thinking demands so much of us and it is the most rewarding. I live for those moments when what someone said seems to turn a light on in my head, causing a whole new understanding and this happens for me in your threads, many times. That can be the value of being in a long thread, but people will drop out and many will not join a long and established thread and there is that concern for organization. When thoughts wonder all over the place it is kind of like Frosty Snowman melting and time to build a new one.

An on topic comment would be, not all cultures lead to scientific and technological advancement. I think the gods of Athens were essential to their reputation of being a race of geniuses. Democracy is an imitation of the gods. Having one God is an intellectual dead end. Learning what to think, rather than how to think, is a dead end.

This is my longest thread so far, so I am pleased generally. I like to see it as organic, so it will shrink or grow of its own accord, so I will try not to force it one way. One aspect is the following of others reading suggestions, because that takes time to follow through. For example, Gnonom recommended the ideas of Hegel and if I get round to this shortly, I may contact him on this thread, or if it is later, and I am influenced strongly by Hegel, I could always start a thread on his ideas.

I have to admit that I have not read that much Greek philosophy, and really only have familiarity with the basics of Plato and Aristotle. I tend to think that I need to be aware of new, emerging ideas but that should not be about neglecting the past.

You say that, 'Having one God is an intellectual dead end.' I think that is true and I do like to be able to dip in and out of the many threads which people create, as I probably have many recurring threads in my own thoughts. Sometimes, I think that I have written a comment and been ignored and, days later I get a reply from someone who has read it and decided to respond. I actually write a lot of comments, and probably some of them are not great, but I do believe that the more we write, and take risks, the more likely we will say important ideas, and that these ideas can evolve.

Really, the whole area of relativism, religion, science and truth involves so many questions. So far, I have found that it has cleared some of my own fuzzy thoughts and the aspect which I have focusing upon is the individual, authentic search for truth as being central rather than any outright objective one. However, this belief leads me to keep an open mind for whatever emerges next on this thread, or beyond.

noun: relativism

the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. — Oxford Languages

Thous shall not eat thy neighbor is a culturally taboo demonstrating relativism. There are cultures that embrace cannibalism. However, when we drink the wine and eat the wafer blessed by a priest we are drinking the blood and eating the body of Jesus Christ. I know in our culture today that is totally repugnant, but in the beginning of Christianity when it was a secret organization, there was concern about them having cannibalistic rituals and what else could drinking the wine and eating the bread be, but symbolically eating Jesus's body and drinking his blood? And it makes sense to do this to become one with Jesus by consuming him.

Of course we have lost the history of this ritual and the reasoning for it, but how could that reasoning be missed. Jesus became the bread and wine, following the Egyptian tradition of Isis being the bread and water. I love etymology, the study of the origin of words and meaning.

At least 5 Biblical stories are translations of Sumerian stories and I feel confident that the Sumerian stories are records of fact, but when the stories are told and retold for many generations, the facts get forgotten. The original story of Adam and Eve, tells of an Eden and a flood that destroyed a goddesses plants and she got so mad so cursed the river to die, and in reality a great and long drought followed the flood, and the river almost died- dried up. The the climate returned to normal and people returned to the valley (meaning of Adam) and the lady who makes live, was one of the goddesses in the story whose name means healing the rib. We can see how our understanding of this story could be based in fact and how much its meaning changed over many generations. The goddess decided to let the river live and man the first man and woman to help the river stay in its banks. Perhaps we would have a better relationship with our planet if we believed we were created to take care of the planet.

Your thread includes an interest in science and religion. Geologist believe they have found the 4 rivers of Eden and they found evidence of a flood in the region of these rivers, in a region that is Iran today. And etymology gives us more clues about stories that appear to be changed by the Hebrews, rewriting them to fit their notion of one God. These people may have come been followers of Amenhotep who fled when their holy city was destroyed and we know, under the leadership of Abraham they returned to their home land, but not before searching the Sumerian archives. Ur being a Sumerian city that had died but left left archives and other remains. So what are we to believe? I think we differ on what is the most believable to us. Religious folks like those who want to believe in Atlantis or that aliens are responsible for our progress, all see the facts differently, each thrilled to have proof of what they want to believe.

Right on our public broadcasting channel is presenting Christianity as one and only true religion and announces the Bible is the greatest book ever written. :rage: I wonder how many ancient books have these people made to make such a claim? I think such shows should come with a warning that they are religiously prejudiced and could be offensive to some viewers.

I think that Freud wrote about the way in which Christians are indulging in cannibalistic rituals in the idea of communion. Of course, the debate becomes even more complicated within the Church, as to how much is seen as part of symbolic ritual. I was brought up as Catholic and taught firmly, and not even meant to question, the idea that it is not symbolic and that is the literal eating of the body and blood of Christ.

Of course, we are at a strange time in history because to a large extent places of worship have been shut or only allowing small amounts of people inside churches. This must apply to all religious faiths, but what is now the case, is that within the Christian church, we are now in a position in which, to a large extent, Easter and Christmas have been cancelled and I am sure that this is the first time. I do wonder if this will have a long term effect on the future of belief, because I am inclined to think that life will be different fundamentally after the pandemic.

Perhaps religious belief, especially Christianity, is at the crossroads, and perhaps it will not be the same pillar of truth for many in the future like it has been within the history of Western civilisation.

Christianity is not going to away that easily. Look at what the Jews endured during the holocaust and they became even stronger in the defense of their religion and their identity as Jews, an identity that would be unknown if they did not make a issue of it. These religions would not exist if the humans didn't make them exist. No god has spoken to us lately. Although humans think they can know the word of God and His will and believe they are God's favorite people and that what they want is what God wants them to have, even if they must kill for it, which is totally contrary to commandment to not kill.

God's truth is true for everyone, no matter what religion they are. That is science and the democratic way of determining the best reasoning.

I am not sure that we need religion or Christianity to go away completely. Perhaps the dialogue between religion and science is a good thing. If the scientists had complete monopoly on the idea of truth, the picture might be flat, leading to reason but with no room for emotion or intuition.

Regarding Christianity, we have to be aware that the difference between the historical development of Christianity is probably and the original teachings of Christ, especially those within esoteric Christianity, such as that arising in the Gnostic gospels. Also, the ideas of Buddhism, and other Eastern systems of thought offer a radical alternative to Christianity.

Paganism is also a tradition which should not be left out. I think that the whole perspective of shamanism is very important too. I have read a lot more about shamanism than Christianity. The whole lifestyle of the shaman, in vision quests, exploring the upper realms and the underworld is a direct form of seeking truth and healing.

In some ways, perhaps we, who can look to the sciences and all these many spiritual traditions are at an advantage in having many doorways to explore. There is a danger of getting lost in the maze, but , if we can find our way it gives so much scope for the pursuit of finding individual truth.

I claim morality is essential to our liberty and democracy. If this is true, why do we need a false god and a false belief that is divisive? You have stated there are other ways to seek truth besides relying on the Bible.

Getting lost in the maze is going to Hades to seek meaning. Facts without meaning have little value. We should not go to Hades without the help of the gods and that would make your first statement correct. However, for me those gods are concepts, and learning of them is like learning of virtues.

I believe cultures must prepare the young for adulthood and this is done with education. Right now we have amoral education for technology and left moral training to the church. That is very problematic! That justifies your fear that things can go very wrong and they are going very wrong, but this does not mean we need religion. We need a culture that raises moral awareness and prepares the young to be adults, not leaving them immature and lost as education for technology is doing. We had education for good moral judgment, until the 1958 Nation Defense Education Act and leaving moral training to the church.

Hopefully, education will improve and not simply be about religion. However, I do believe that even with the best possible education some people are going to struggle and have to find their way through the maze, because the answers to the big philosophy questions are deep, and this involves searching. But, hopefully, not getting too lost.

I do believe that I am of a disposition of not accepting anything at face value and would have struggled to search for answers independently of the ideas presented to me by parents and teachers. It involves existential suffering, but it is perhaps the purpose of my own existence, and of many others. And the processes which I am describing is probably in accordance with the idea of the shamanic journey or quest.

The focus of education needs to be how to think, not what to think.

The some of the Greek philosophers were fanatical about education being how we experience life and about education for practical use being fine of slaves and people who must work for a living, but totally unfit for the upper class and rulers.

Apart from formal education I would say that families are the beginning of the process of learning to think, rather than just being told what to think. My parents used to talk to me a lot and encourage me to think freely. When I was at school I was aware that had discussed so much that others had not been encouraged to think about.It is surprising that my parents never thought through their religious beliefs fully, as I have done, and chose to cling on to their original beliefs.

Apart from formal education I would say that families are the beginning of the process of learning to think, rather than just being told what to think. My parents used to talk to me a lot and encourage me to think freely. When I was at school I was aware that had discussed so much that others had not been encouraged to think about.It is surprising that my parents never thought through their religious beliefs fully, as I have done, and chose to cling on to their original beliefs. — Jack Cummins

We can not rely on parents to teach children how to think because of the fast thinking and slow thinking factor. Slow thinking requires learned thinking skills. We can pick up those skills from our parents if our parents have them, the chances a good that the parents do not have those skills, and go through reacting instead of thinking. That is why it is important for public education to teach the thinking skills and this would be learning math and how to diagram a sentence. I regret I did not understand this when I was young because it is harder to learn such things in our later years. Our brains don't accumulate new information as well. On the other hand, we are more apt to grasp the meaning and see the bigger picture in our later years. Our heads are so full we can easily have great awareness of meanings as thoughts come together, but learning math or a foreign language is very challenging.

Many of us grow up right-brain thinkers and have undeveloped left-brain skills.
I want to add a question, neglecting right brain activity with too much focus on left-brain activity might be harmful to humans?

I think that the balance between right and left brain thinking is of supreme importance. It could be that this whole area is worthy of a thread in it's own right because it involves the whole way in which we process information and think.

There's a 2009 book that I've noticed on this very topic The Master and his Emissary, Ian McGilchrist. Haven't read it, but read a long interview with the author and it seems pretty sound.

Thanks, I will look out for it.