PsiCop

Because my explanation is much simpler. A question that ancient peoples asked themselves is: "If there are gods, why are they not here?" Genesis 3 is how the Hebrews answered it, and as such, it's a very simple answer. Campbell's model requires an additional layer of abstraction; i.e. the peoples who believed in gods, had beliefs about those gods and what they did; they decided that the gods and humanity once had a "place" where they were together, in which humanity no longer lives. They then expanded upon this abstraction, making of it even more than just that it was a place where humanity and the gods (or God) lived together ... they assigned it certain metaphysical qualities and expanded it into a reality of its own.

None of this added abstraction is necessary, however, if one goes by my explanation.

I generally follow the principle of parsimony (which is that the simpler the explanation, the more likely it's true). Campbell and others don't follow that. I'm not sure why, but they don't. (Note, much earlier in his career, Campbell's ideas were, in fact, much simpler; I think what happened is that he became too enmeshed in his own speculations and they grew around him, and he never saw the unnecessary complication for what it was. Many scholars of various types typically fall prey to this, so it's not unusual or unexpected.)

romansh

Thanks Psi .... I have to admit your version is simpler.

Having said that I suspect Occam's razor is much over rated.
Plus simplicity is relative.

thanks again

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Derbonic

Interesting thread guys. To refocus on the thread topic I would like to say a few things.

Through out this thread there are a lot of examples as to how religion encourages ignorance. It is abundant in truthyness. So many claims of Truth and Knowlege where there is only beliefe/faith/opinion. For those of you who are stateing your opinions at truth or knowlege , please stop and think about why it is you feel you must state things as such. What is your motivation? Have an answer already? I suggest thinking a little harder about it. I will wait...

It seems for most religious peoples, switching on and off there standards or criteria for sufficent evedence in determining reality is easy. When they are doing math they can use the scientific method , and when talking about God/religion can ignore the scientific method.
Unfortuanatly many people end up using the " If I believe it enough it will be true " attitude in other aspects of there lives. People call it Rationalizing , but its anything but rational. It may work out well for them , maybe even often but it is a dishonest outlook. Faith is great. We put faith in many many things every day. We may put our faith in something very often and be justified in that faith just as often , BUT no matter how many times your faith is seemingly well placed , it is not knowlege. Again why the need to state your faith to others in the form of Truth and Fact? What is the motivation? Is there something wrong with Faith. Is it not good enough for you , your peers , your CHILDREN.
Teach not the children of our future that it is ok to Pretend thier Faith's be Truths.

__________________
You can do it your own way, long as its done just how I say.~the hypocrit

PsiCop

I'm not sure that simplicity is relative. Let me illustrate with examples, both of which are valid arithmetic expressions having the same result:

1. 1 + 2 = 3
2. (2 ^ 4) - (3 x 4) -1 = 3

Which of these would you say is simpler? If you can see a difference, then on what basis can you even begin to claim that "simplicity is relative"?

romansh

3=3 ..... now this starts getting esoteric. Axioms and self evident truths?

Which is a simpler explanation for existence:

God did it
God did not do it

Origianally for Occam thought the former was the simpler explanation.
in this sense it is simpler

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

PsiCop

Actually neither of these positions is simpler than the other. They are both ontological assertions, i.e. that God exists, or that God does not exist. Symbolically we'd express these as: X = 1, or X <> 1. We have an identity, and a negation.

Ockham did not envision all the ramifications of his parsimony principle since he operated from his point of view as a believer living in a world only of believers. It is not reasonable to assume he could ever have arrived at the conclusion that God did not exist ... whether based on parsimony or by another process. Nevertheless, the principle of parsimony remains useful, including those ramifications Ockham could not envision.

romansh

X=1 .... OK I know that X equals 1 ... I can stop thinking.
X<>1 ..... hmmmn, this may or may not be useful?

I still think simplicity like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think we are disagreeing in any material way Psi.

all the best

ps do you know why Ockham/Occam even started thinking about the principle?
Not that familiar with history and much much more.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

PsiCop

Although the principle of parsimony has William of Ockham's name on it, he did not "invent" it, per se. Parsimony lurked in the pages of other scholars, e.g. Scotus, Maimonides, etc. But he became known for it because he cited it several times in the course of his career, and he stated it explicitly, whereas others had merely implied that simple explanations were preferred.

In most of the cases where he used it, Ockham did so in support of nominalism, a school of philosophy that was opposed by realism, which had been inspired by Plato. Realism posited that each thing is a "reflection" of some original, perfect, "real" item. The typical example given (starting in the Middle Ages) is that of a chair; chairs come in many styles ... with arms, without, padded or not, large or small, made of wood or metal, etc.; but they all reflect a metaphysical "'real' chair" which is "out there," somewhere. Many realists posited that there was a "perfect realm" made up solely of these "reals" or "universals," which usually was correlated with heaven, with earth being an impure, imperfect manifestation of them. The existence of the "'real' chair" explained why there could be so many different sorts of chairs which yet lived up to all the expectations one had of a chair.

Nominalists dismissed this notion. For them, the notion of "chair" is an abstract label assigned by people to pieces of furniture which meet a definition of "chair," which in turn is based on social consensus. In Ockham's case, he argued that positing an entire world of "reals" was an unnecessary complication ... one can explain the endless variety of "chairs" which all somehow perform the task of being a chair, merely by understanding that craftsmen were all building things reflecting the conventional idea of "chair" that had been arrived at by society and denoted, semantically, by the word "chair." The chair's design, purpose and function has no separate metaphysical reality which is imposed on it from elsewhere.

While realism now seems a bit silly to most people, it was taken very seriously in the Middle Ages and people's careers were affected by which side of this debate they took. A modern reflection of this medieval scholastic conflict is seen now in the debate over something called deconstruction, which in many corners is decried as vile and destructive ... this debate is just one extremely academic element of the larger "culture war" that the Right began to wage on modernity, beginning in the late 80s.

At any rate, Ockham used his "razor" rather specifically to support nominalism, and did not envision it being used as widely as people have adapted it, since his time. But he did state it as an general epistemological principle with its own standing (as a heuristic maxim if nothing else), so applying it further than he did is not inappropriate; it's just that he could not have anticipated what we ended up doing with it.

Abel

Psi
You betray your doubts concerning the Word of God by accusing John of inventing what he saw. If you do not believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God, then how do you justify accusing me of ripping things out of context? I will fully explain why I believe the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel refer to Satan.

First, in Isaiah, you are correct that verse 4 is addressed to the King of Babylon, however, this is a Proverb. Look at who is being addressed in verse 12. Now, everyone knows who Lucifer is. He is the Devil, not merely the king of Babylon. Verses 12-15 are known as the "Five Foolish I Will's of Satan". This is the origin of the sin of pride. Satan wanted to be God.

Second, in Ezekiel, again you are correct in that verse 12 is a lamentation against the king of Tyre. Yet, if you look closely you will see that God's sumation goes beyond the king of Tyre. Verse 13 says this being was in the Garden of Eden. Verse 14 states this being was the anointed Cherub (Angelic Being). Verse 14 also states this being at one time was upon the Holy Mount of God. Verse 17 predicts the war in Heaven when Satan will be cast out of God's presense. (Rev.12:7-9). These descriptions could not possibly be directed to a mere human individual. The vision is not of Satan in his own person, but of Satan fulfilling himself in and through an earthly king who arrogates to himself divine honours.

Your attitude towards me is rather coarse. If you disagree with my views, that is fine, but please try to maintain a gentleman's posture even if you are unable to present a Christian one.

PsiCop

There is nothing illogical or unreasonable by suggesting that John of Patmos's work contains allegory rather than relating actual events or visions that he saw. As I explained to you, allegory is a very old, very common literary device.
I do not need to believe in the literal truth of scripture, to recognize that you pick and choose things, ignoring some pieces in order to rework others. You're engaging in a la carte theology.
Actually, "Lucifer" is the Latin translation (first used by St Jerome) of the Hebrew הילל (HYLL) which probably means "crescent moon" and was connected with the "morning star" (which is what lucifer originally meant in Latin). At any rate, it hardly makes a difference, since it is also a vocative expression in the original Hebrew as well as in Jerome's Latin translation, meaning it is a descriptor of address. You will note that it is followed (in English translation) by a second vocative expression, "son of the dawn." In neither case has the address of the narrative switched to a new person; it is still the king of Babylon to whom the author speaks.

Thus, "Lucifer" is not the name of a being. In fact, modern Bible translations (such as the NASB) do not render this as "Lucifer," instead they maintain the descriptive expression "star of the morning." That is ... modern Bible translators do not agree with your position that it is a name!
Since "Satan" is not addressed in Isaiah 14, this cannot be true — regardless of what the passage is "known as."
You agree with me twice ... yet somehow I expect you will not, ultimately, agree.
These are all expressions or idioms by which the king of Tyre is being addressed, to emphasize his "fallen" state. It does not mean that he is literally said to have come from Eden or any of the rest of it.
Actually, they very well could refer to humans, if one understands they are expressions, idioms, honorifics.
You admit, then, that an address to a human king is mingled in there, somehow. OK.
I see nothing "coarse" about pointing out your inconsistencies. You claim to read the Bible literally, yet you discard pieces of it, and do not even know what its original words mean; further you dismiss any possibility of allegory or metaphor, when ancient literature has plenty of both and it is not unreasonable for the Bible authors to have used them.