This one is a “two-cuppa post” – lots of words. I hope you see why at the end.
Dear Tildeb, in between Prison Break, Series 2 and a great night’s sleep, your comment has been rolling around my brain. I woke up this morning with one word in my head:
And, I think, that explains – finally – my intuitive discontent in the last few posts.
Modelling is where you and Ark go. You live and die by your modelling: a set of criteria, a set of data, a set of rules, a set of prior evidence, a set of this and set of that – all verifiable and all catalogued. All controllable and all answerable to your “box of reference”. And I applaud you. I wasn’t joking when I said Ark’s insistence that a yes/no answer is really helpful.
I think where I struggle is that, having accepted the value of all of that, it becomes too limiting. It is your “box” created and defined to suit another (worthy) agenda. An agenda of survival of the planet and all of us on it. My problem is not the model and acceptance / rejection of the model. It is the “application” of your model to everything.
Your model is a chemical cocktail of physical changes brought about by neural receptors doing their job. The dataset of profound experiences becomes part of the model of prediction for the future. But science also says that one negative experience wipes out ten positive experiences. Which also changes the dataset. And that changes the probability of future experiences. Or as I call it :
What I do with what I believe will happen based upon what has already happened (and not just to me – but to others I see, hear and read about). A “belief structure” composed of both observable identifiable evidence and the filtering by my worldview / belief structure. (which includes non-verifiable data). And which will “tamper with” my dataset – and with it my worldview / belief structure – and my current and future behaviour.
And that is observable evidence data.
Neuro Linguistic Programming: avoiding all the boring science of “proper psychology” (but birthed from “proper science”). Its application is the fiddling with your dataset in a way that is good for you or not (and just what does “good for you” mean?)
Do I – as a practitioner or recipient – have choice in “fiddling” by another? Ethics is the usual answer. And ethics – like belief structures – change.
Which – for me – is where the unconditional love model is useful. A love that holds me and you (and all others) as equally deserving of a consequence. That if an action / decision tips the balance of consequence in your favour to my detriment – is that an action I should or shouldn’t do?
And then Climate Change. You mentioned that as an example of “religion v science”.
I call upon my intuitive “love is the answer dataset” – which goes way back beyond the “current dataset” – and therefore becomes anecdotal (my worldview) because of that.
That if I have so many children that I cannot afford to feed them, clothe them, house them, play with them, keep them safe, and have to work every hour of the day to try and do all of that … Then my absence means the very reason for family is missing with my absence.
Now multiply that imagery the world over – and for generation after generation – and we are asking the planet to foot the bill. And I know (my world-view dataset) that if I ask my small plot of land to keep on giving without putting anything back – then I am changing my future.
And I see that we have been doing that to this planet even before – and ever since – we became top predator. And as science and technological advances understand better how to extract more and faster – we have been living in a model that said (and still does say) that is okay. So – for me – religion is not the problem (or the solution).
The problem is “us”.
If we do this today will we get that tomorrow? Yes we will. Let’s test the model. It works. Let’s apply the model on an industrial scale. Look at the benefit it brings. So what if we tweeked the model – what advances would that bring? Let’s test the model. It works. But what about these by-products we didn’t want? Don’t tell anyone. Why not? We are making too much money to stop!
In others words – we all model.
And my dataset says that a large percentage of the population seek answers that are “bigger than just me” – that are “what’s it all about” – and which have involved “gods” and superstition since time began. My model does not see a future without that.
And I hope it never does. Because good does come from that. The “bigger than just me” is a powerful motivator. To science and creativity – and to greed and power – and in choice of word, thought or deed. My dataset says that none are immune from all these models and motivators.
You said that if I replace “God” with “Harvey” in Ark’s little rant, it would make sense of Ark’s little rant.
I say that if you replace “God” with “Love” in Ark’s little rant – it makes no sense at all:
“Perhaps it would have been more truthful had you responded: ”
Jesus LOVE is my bestist, invisible 2000 year old smelly little make believe friend in the whole wide world and I talk to him LOVE. Even while I am on the toilet .. An’ he LOVE listens…. honest. And answers prayers. But he LOVE doesn’t look while I pee. He LOVE can be your best friend too, if you just confess you are dirty rotten sinner NON LOVER and say he LOVE made the entire universe and was crucified for all our sins REJECTION OF LOVE, including yours too. And then I’ll give you one of these Jammie Dodgers and a can of coke. How about it? Are you really ready to confess to Jesus LOVE?”
It makes no sense because it is external. And my world view, my belief structure, my data set is all internal. And I tamper with it, I test it, and change my future because of it.
So it is “how will I change my current and future behaviour” that interests me.
If it is in a way that allows you and me and all to be part of the consequence – then it (by default) becomes “bigger than me”. And “we” have always found a god to fill that vacuum – which is observable evidence.
Which needs a structure of a sacred text (written or oral). And that provides another model some will see as an opportunity for more riches and power. And that is observable evidence of the god model as well.
But not for all. Nothing is ever for all. Other than, perhaps, love and a bigger “something” (at some point in our lives).
So why nor harness “god” by whatever name (or Unconditional Love)? Why not influence my dataset and future behaviour in a way which achieves exactly what you wish to achieve as well? Because the consequences of atheism and religion … ?
My “model and prediction” is of infinite division and strife – because it disallows my model and my data set and my world view / belief structure in favour of yours (and vice versa).
The consequences of a “god” called Unconditional Love?
My model says a much better outcome awaits.