sen no sen hello
Indeed no believer would exist if there did not exist a sort of "metaphysical carrot" to move him forward, and even less if he had to grasp the notion of god with regard to the naturalist definition!
Once again, it is a reductionist vision when it claims to be only naturalistic. Furthermore, this is a distortion of the very meaning of believer on the metaphysical level. The concept of metaphysical carrot is as absurd as to believe that a child believes in his parents by some sort of carrot because it benefits from protection and nourishment. The act of believing is free, with no expectation of particular return, even if it does exist.
However, this does not change the real nature of things, there is no more a god than gods for the simple reason that our mental capacities are by no means sufficient to understand the incomprehensible ...
Crazy reasoning! It is like asserting that there is no vacuum, infinity, absolute when we are unable to see and perceive its existence. Naming everything is part of the information for exchanging ideas.
Equally ridiculous. it is therefore necessary to create concepts to federate, to connect brains in order to create a network.
Equally ridiculous too! The shared notion of god does not belong to a concept, but
to the experience. For “proof” the religious concepts are very different according to the cultures, but the experiences are the same. Obviously this escapes anyone who has not gone through these experiences and even deny them as we can deny France Inter if the radio only picks up Europe 1 or any other channel.
Indeed
only those who capture France Inter
can firmly that this chain really exists.
The idea of God * therefore serves as an "anchor" for the believer, and it is then this psychic implant which allows the community of believers to build a society founded around this guiding thought.
There, there is a kind of reality for lack of truth. Isolation can create doubt that the experience is only a fantasy of the mind, the comparison with other experimenters confirms its reality and this is valid even for minds that believe themselves to be rational
It is exactly the same with exponential economism, this one is based on the belief (which it is largely operational) to be able to constantly increase one's standard of living, to increase one's sphere of influence and gratification to a point such as this, via technologism, promises ultimately if not eternal life, at least immortality.
It is not at all the same thing because on the one hand it does not belong to the rational of materialist society, on the other only to materialism, even if the latter is tinged with irrational (for this philosophy! )
For "eternal" life it is biological as much as social absurdity, but it is the materialist counterpart of "religious" eternal life. White beanie, white beanie!
* If this idea was really grasped then we should logically note the advent of a perfect world ... this is obviously by no means the case, which shows that the concept of God is unfortunately a concept of a sociological order.
This is naive reasoning in kindergarten or CE1
, inherited from a misconception invented by religions as its opponents.
Already the notion of a perfect world is absurd in the conditions that surround us where Darwinism advocates the notion of the strongest always winning over the weakest (according to criteria which are often wrong). A perfect world would entail an enormous spiritual progression leading to harmonize it with actions.
To use the example of the automobile (or anything else) the designer seeks to eliminate all the possible faults that could endanger the future driver. But he cannot impose on him the rules of conduct sparing the life of the driver like the others (free will whose transgressors like to recommend themselves). Hence these binding laws (in biology we call this the laws of life) or even penalizing dangerous transgressors for themselves as for others [*]. So when everyone abides by the law,
willingly, all the stress conditions will disappear at the same time making the automotive environment almost "perfect".
Ahmed hello
Individual asceticism, if it is a sacrifice, besides being ineffective on a practical level *, is a very convincing justification for the validity of consumerism. It can therefore only be justified by the feeling of "winning" on a personal and moral level, and therefore be posed as a positive step of distancing, of disalienation.
All this is very fair! in the area to which I am sensitive, Vg, we see that the notion of sacrifice (to forbid something, this is what Obamot thought before nuancing his speech and even changing his mind) supposed to be replaced (among vegans which grow more and more) by this positive step of distancing, of alienation of carnism, like others for the ORGANIC, alternative medicines, etc…
What is saved by some will be wasted by others ...
to a certain extent: yes! nature abhors a vacuum, we say! Admittedly, but emptying the container of a liquid or any product, eventually exhausting what it contains, it's just a matter of time!
[*] See the grumblings, transgressors of the imposed speeds, against the radars last generation which do not let anything pass any more.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré