* * *

Taiwan’s Pacific Department Store is the unlikely home of an unlikely homage to the world’s faiths. At the Museum of World Religions visitors wander a great hall, watch video footage of funerals in other countries, leave a handprint blessing on the heat-sensitive wall, partake in a purification ritual at the water curtain, and marvel at the wall of gratitude. This “spiritual supermarket” is the brainchild of Buddhist monk Master Hsin Tao, who came up with the idea after renouncing the world and living in isolation for more than a decade. Spirituality and Health reports, “Master Hsin Tao believes that today’s tech-savvy kids are not interested in dusty cultural artifacts. They want technologically sophisticated displays that allow them to experience all the religions of the world and feel the concept of universal love.”

 http://www.utne.com/Spirituality/Shopping-World-Religions-1774.aspx?utm_content=08.11.09+Spirituality&utm_campaign=Spirituality&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email  

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 8, 2009 11:42 AM http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124443046235593295.html#mod=djemEditorialPage Mr. Wright begins "The Evolution of God" by wondering not whether faiths are true but why they proliferated in early society. His conclusion is that the initial impulse of faith was the self-interest of its administrative class. "Whenever people sense the presence of a puzzling and momentous force," he writes, "they want to believe there is a way to comprehend it. If you can convince them you're the key to comprehension, you can reach great stature." ... What is the contemporary equivalent to the tribal shaman? Stockbrokers. Like shamans, stockbrokers claim the ability to augur hidden forces -- and, like shamans, Mr. Wright says, their advice is almost always worthless. In general, customers (ancient farmers needing rain, modern investors) want to believe that someone has secret, mystic knowledge of a powerful unknown (the natural world, Wall Street). Like investment advisers today, mediums of the far past claimed mystic knowledge and charged for it. In some old tribal cultures, Mr. Wright adds, the word shaman meant roughly "politician." Angling for religious power was thus essentially the same as angling for tribal leadership.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 25, 2009 12:17 PM http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/06/24/evolution_of_god/?source=newsletter Actually, "The Evolution of God" never grapples with the most basic religious question -- the existence of God. Instead it charts the twists and turns of how God's personality has kept changing over the centuries, and specifically, how the rough-and-tumble politics of the ancient Middle East shaped the Abrahamic religions. The book is filled with richly observed details about the Bible and the Quran, though Wright wears his learning lightly as he guides us through several thousand years of religious history.

Now a dialog on The Evolution of God by Robert Wright:

Creationism For Liberals
by Jerry A. Coyne
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8874be1e-16db-43db-bda5-17ac7af196d0

and

Robert Wright Responds: Jerry Coyne and 'The Evolution of God'

 

Snippets from http://happydays.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/the-self-thinking-thought/?em:

A proof for God's existence, courtesy of an 11th century monk named Anselm:

The proof, which would come to be called the ontological argument, purports to demonstrate the existence of God from ideas alone: the concept of a God that doesn’t exist wouldn’t be much of a God. A true concept of God, “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived,” would have to be a God that exists. Therefore, God exists.

The great 20th century mathematician Kurt Gödel had this to say about him:

Jacek, you are stealing my time (deadline is approaching), but I just cannot resist..

Originally written by Anselm in 11th century: - Think of the greatest concept ever - Now imagine that it doesn't exist - Not so great now, is it? - So if what you're thinking of is really so great, it must exist! A true concept of God, "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived," would have to be a God that exists. Therefore, God exists

Error: "would have to be" and "is" is a huge difference.

A concept gets into existence bei someone conceiving it, but at this point it is still far away from reality - the moment you forget it, it is gone.

Now here is my proof that God = Nothing:

Most religious texts can be consolidated by considering "God" as the highest superordinate concept (or superordinate term).

"Experimental psychology" (as my philosophy prof called it) shows that the properties of a superordinate concept are the intersection of the properties of its subordinated concepts.

Illustration:

Example objects with example properties:

apple.colour = green;  banana.colour = yellow;  plum.colour = violet
apple.grows_on = tree;  banana.grows_on = tree;  plum.grows_on = tree

Superordinate concept: fruits
Intersection of these properties: grows_on = tree, which is true for all fruits.

So if God is the highest superordinate concept, his properties must be the intersection of all possible properties, which is the empty set = nothing.

In contrast to this, the devil would have all properties, in accordance with the German saying: "The devil sits in the detail". 
 

Mmm... a loyal dodo that I am, I see that simply like this:

It seems more polite to think no god exists than to think one exists but is completely nuts and a sadist to boot...

Ah...uhu...ahem...well...not in the manner described here:

Six thousand evangelical women gather to support biblical womanhood, and hear from theological leaders about the great influence wielded by “a woman on her knees.”

This October, more than 6,000 women gathered in Chicago for the True Woman Conference ’08: a stadium-style event to promote what its proponents call “biblical womanhood,”… Though only just under 3,000 women have actually signed the document since its unveiling on October 11, the fact that it exists, and the campaign to gather such a large showing of public support, reveals something important about this movement: that its followers don’t view themselves simply as a remnant of polite, churchy women, holding out against a crass culture, but rather as a revolutionary body waging “countercultural” rebellion against what they see as the feminist status quo.

… 

The “countercultural” attitudes that signers support include the idea that women are called to affirm and encourage godly masculinity, and honor the God-ordained male headship of their husbands and pastors; that wifely submission to male leadership in the home and church reflects Christ’s submission to God, His Father; that “selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ”; and, in a pronatalist turn of phrase that recalls the rhetoric of the Quiverfull conviction, their willingness to “receive children as a blessing from the Lord.”

Finally, in a reference to the importance of woman-to-woman mentoring within the conservative church, they affirmed that “mature Christian women” are obliged to disciple the next generation of Christian wives, training them in matters of submission and headship, in order to provide a legacy of “fruitful femininity.” … The conference was organized by DeMoss’ St. Louis-based ministry (and eponymous twice-daily radio program), Revive Our Hearts, a women’s ministry that stresses submission as a militant discipline that will alter the culture.

…

The imperative of such a return to “biblical” gender roles is even farther- reaching though, as Kassian explained. Feminism, she argued, in a paraphrase of the argument in her book The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture, is a multistage process that begins with feminism’s insistence on self-definition and self-determination, and ends with feminism’s declaration that women can interpret and decide for themselves who or what God is: a statement of theological relativity that threatens to undermine biblical literalism completely. In The Feminist Mistake, Kassian explained this slide more thoroughly:

Feminism begins with a deconstruction of a Judeo-Christian view of womanhood (the right to name self); progressed to the deconstruction of manhood, gender relationships, family/societal structures, and a Judeo-Christian worldview (the right to name the world); and concluded with the concept of a metaphysical pluralism, self-deification, and the rejection of the Judeo-Christian deity (the right to name God).

To the age-old question of “who is God,” Kassian complained, feminism answers, it’s up to you. And this, to Kassian, is a blasphemous statement of authority in and of itself, and even a sign of self-worship. “According to feminism, women decide, and ultimately, that means that they themselves are God.”

…

“Wimpy theology makes wimpy women,” Piper told the audience. …

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/890/women%E2%80%99s_liberation_through_submission:_an_evangelical_anti-feminism_is_born?page=entire

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on September 11, 2009 4:38 PM Ah...uhu...ahem...well...not in the manner described here:

With the play on the word "submission" I just note that as the one who gives birth to new life, and thus makes possible the search which is to be carried out through self-development (and, for Homo sapiens sapiens it is the life on Earth that makes that search possible), it is the woman who seems to be closer to ultimate things. Man is so too, but by being closer to death as it is typically he who is the warrior, too often without submitting to the beauty of life and/or common sense.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on September 11, 2009 4:38 PM “Wimpy theology makes wimpy women”

Not only women...

Former president Jimmy Carter went on the record to point out that he believes that racism is at the heart of the great deal of the extreme animosity being leveled at President Obama  (NBC News September 15). Carter identified himself as a Southerner with an insider's understanding.  There's something he didn't mention however: the special culpability of his own religion -- Evangelical Christianity -- for the anti-Obama hyperventilating and furious reaction to our first black president. And that reaction has less to do with race and more to do with the ugliest side of religion. http://www.alternet.org/story/142755/right-wing_hatemongering_fueled_by_christianity
 

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 18, 2009 11:39 AM Originally written by Jacek K. on June 8, 2009 11:42 AM http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124443046235593295.html#mod=djemEditorialPage Mr. Wright begins "The Evolution of God" by wondering not whether faiths are true but why they proliferated in early society. His conclusion is that the initial impulse of faith was the self-interest of its administrative class. "Whenever people sense the presence of a puzzling and momentous force," he writes, "they want to believe there is a way to comprehend it. If you can convince them you're the key to comprehension, you can reach great stature." ... What is the contemporary equivalent to the tribal shaman? Stockbrokers. Like shamans, stockbrokers claim the ability to augur hidden forces -- and, like shamans, Mr. Wright says, their advice is almost always worthless. In general, customers (ancient farmers needing rain, modern investors) want to believe that someone has secret, mystic knowledge of a powerful unknown (the natural world, Wall Street). Like investment advisers today, mediums of the far past claimed mystic knowledge and charged for it. In some old tribal cultures, Mr. Wright adds, the word shaman meant roughly "politician." Angling for religious power was thus essentially the same as angling for tribal leadership. Originally written by Jacek K. on June 25, 2009 12:17 PM http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/06/24/evolution_of_god/?source=newsletter Actually, "The Evolution of God" never grapples with the most basic religious question -- the existence of God. Instead it charts the twists and turns of how God's personality has kept changing over the centuries, and specifically, how the rough-and-tumble politics of the ancient Middle East shaped the Abrahamic religions. The book is filled with richly observed details about the Bible and the Quran, though Wright wears his learning lightly as he guides us through several thousand years of religious history. Now a dialog on The Evolution of God by Robert Wright: Creationism For Liberals by Jerry A. Coyne http://www.tnr.com/article/books/creationism-liberals and Robert Wright Responds: Jerry Coyne and 'The Evolution of God'

Robert Wright's shorter response on TNR is here: http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/correspondence-defending-the-evolution-god

The title of my book refers not to biological evolution but to the evolution of the human conception of God. So it's odd that The New Republic chose a biologist, Jerry A. Coyne, to review the book ("Creationism for Liberals," August 12). But it turns out that Coyne's misplaced expertise wasn't the main problem. Of his many serious misrepresentations of my book, most seem rooted in a simple failure to read it--or read it attentively, at least. Here is a small sample of Coyne's errors....

To which the reviewer, Jerry A. Coyne, now responds:

Robert Wright fails to respond to my main criticism: that there is no "scientific" evidence for a transcendent force which, by coupling social interaction to theological change, pulls humanity toward ever greater morality. Instead, his defense rests on selectively quoting his own book. (I've posted a longer response at http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/response-to-robert-wright/.)

I'll take up Wright's four points in order: http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/correspondence-defending-the-evolution-god?page=0,1