Critics of Templism have so far mostly read
15 Tenets of Templism, then tried to contrive the most broad-sweeping critique they can based off of that. This looks effeminate and often irrelevant.
The new document
The Templist Statements is the tl;dr of
The Templist Canon. 13 sections of 13 statements. This allows critics to pick apart specific claims of Templism and criticize them.
https://archive.org/details/the-statements
I welcome the "First Critic" spoken of in the main thread to show his chops here. Then the second, third, etc. This document easily facilitates criticism. You don't have to sift through my Substack to find a point to criticize.
Refrain from the types of criticisms that have been roundly defeated in the initial thread. "This is just moderno-Humean-henopolytheism". We don't care what Templism "just" is, what it can be characterized as, what words apply to it, or how it makes you feel. Nor if it is "like something else that is good" or "like something else that is bad", nor if you can post the gigachad image with respect to it, or if you can't. Women need not apply. Logicians only.
Quote:1. The gods are evidenced by recorded empirical stories. They are as they appear and not as theories abstract them to be. What they “really are” is an inquire for fools.
I simply can not accept this postulation nor have any reason to go beyond my prudential judgement and accept this statement. Humans are liars and contrivers. We were gifted with an an abundant creativity which manifests, today, in the creation of many things such as novels and buildings. Although, the source form which we acquire these fundamental elements are found in the natural world empirically, the end products after having been processed through the (often) warped humans mind are anything but naturally occurring. Nevertheless, these often times otherworldly conceptions and inventions do not infact have an otherworldly origin. Our inventions are a reflection of the human minds structure outwardly projected.
Therefore, this statement “The gods are evidenced by recorded empirical stories,” Can not be accepted for lack of proof towards the validity of these stories proposed empirical nature. Furthermore, the existence of something which we can not interface with currently, but can only be known through stories, will always be a dubious notion deserving skepticism. Whether the stories proposed occurrence was five minuets from when hearing about it or one-thousand years, the fact persists that without a way to personally validate a stories purely empirical quality there exist the chance that the story is in fact not purely empirical, but a fable. There exists no lack of talented liars in our current age, and this quality has most likely persisted within humans populations throughout history; there is no evidence that lying is some new intercurrent behavior that arose with many of our modern dispositions.
(08-31-2023, 03:38 PM)A CRITIC Wrote: [ -> ]I simply can not accept this postulation nor have any reason to go beyond my prudential judgement and accept this statement. Humans are liars and contrivers.
Thank you Mr. A Critic. You are not only A Critic but THE FIRST critic of Templism. First of all I actually agree with you, which is why I do not believe in my own doctrine. However, my belief or disbelief is an ad hominem concern, and has nothing to do with the truth of the doctrine itself. I will provide an argument for it.
Humans lie, but it is rather bizarre that their lies coincide in nature across disparate geographies and cultures. Why do so many humans, from North America to Central America to Europe to China, "lie" about the existence of ethereal beings that are responsible for various aspects of nature, to which one can pray in exchange for favors bestowed by a humanoid otherworldly creature? The goal of lying is to obtain a certain result, but there are many ways to achieve a given result. If, for example, someone wants political power, such as to justify their regime, there are many ways to do this without invoking a bizarre ethereal humanoid. Yet humans always invoke this particular thing. This suggests that there is an underlying "thing" that the gods are, or are based on, such as how humans across cultures "lie" about the existence of dragons, based upon a common interpretation of fossilized dinosaur remains. Since Templism does not make any claim about what this underlying "thing" is, that question is irrelevant to Templism, but it is only relevant that the gods manifest in certain apparent ways and that these ways, because they are uniform across cultures, must point to the existence of a real thing and not merely a practical lie.
(08-31-2023, 03:38 PM)A CRITIC Wrote: [ -> ]Furthermore, the existence of something which we can not interface with currently, but can only be known through stories, will always be a dubious notion deserving skepticism.
If this were your standard of evidence, you would bar yourself from believing almost anything. Humans must always rely on the testament of other people, since they cannot personally know the whole world.
Hume says similar things to you in
On Miracles of
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. There is a contradiction in this viewpoint. That is, if one establishes that humans often lie, through repeated impressions of humans lying, and the record thereof, then the same standard of evidence (repeated impressions) seems to prove that which is accused of being a lie, namely miracles and divine appearances. Yet it is asserted without empirical evidence that these are a lie, simply on the basis of the general claim that humans lie. Well, this could just as well be said of anything for which there is otherwise a mountain of recorded evidence!
The_Author Wrote:Humans lie, but it is rather bizarre that their lies coincide in nature across disparate geographies and cultures. Why do so many humans, from North America to Central America to Europe to China, "lie" about the existence of ethereal beings that are responsible for various aspects of nature, to which one can pray in exchange for favors bestowed by a humanoid otherworldly creature? The goal of lying is to obtain a certain result, but there are many ways to achieve a given result. If, for example, someone wants political power, such as to justify their regime, there are many ways to do this without invoking a bizarre ethereal humanoid. Yet humans always invoke this particular thing. This suggests that there is an underlying "thing" that the gods are, or are based on, such as how humans across cultures "lie" about the existence of dragons, based upon a common interpretation of fossilized dinosaur remains.
To refute the emboldened words I will restate what I have already said.
A CRITIC Wrote:Our inventions are a reflection of the human mind’s structure outwardly projected.
Instead of a proposed common source which all human cultures draw from for the creation of these recurrent invocation, I propose, that there is actually a common mental structure which produces them. Many human behaviors, such as: speech— political organization and hierarchy,—the creation of art, tools, and structures— have their origins in human biology. Moreover, one of these behaviors, human sociability, manifests in a number of curious ways, but by far, the most interesting is the irrational worship of high status people like celebrities. The admirers of celebrities tend to, in a non-coincidental word, Deify them. Now, could this same human propensity, which is intimately tied to human political organization, also manifest in the worship of non-human objects? Could scientifically lacking cultures attribute this social quality to a proposed metaphysical cause of natural phenomena? Could these deified metaphysical entities also organize themselves in similar ways to how humans politically organize?
Between the two theories proposed which is more probable: Common source or a common mental structure. But this is all just unsatisfying theory, with neither being able to be definitely proven. Both possibilities exist as nothing more then mere conjecture.
The_Author Wrote:If this were your standard of evidence, you would bar yourself from believing almost anything. Humans must always rely on the testament of other people, since they cannot personally know the whole world.
There are many thing which I can not confirm. In the absence of this confirmation all we can rely on are theories. The deciding factor between these theories is a quality call plausibility. The most plausible theory becomes the provisionally determined account for the “truth.” We can frequently, notwithstanding our own prudence, fall into believing erroneous beliefs from this unconfirmable nature of theories. I believe very little, and I leave the possibility open that even that little which I believe can one day be disproven.
(08-31-2023, 07:18 PM)A CRITIC Wrote: [ -> ]Instead of a proposed common source which all human cultures draw from for the creation of these recurrent invocation, I propose, that there is actually a common mental structure which produces them. Many human behaviors, such as: speech— political organization and hierarchy,—the creation of art, tools, and structures— have their origins in human biology.
A Templist could conceivably believe this about the gods. But there is insufficient evidence to say anything about what they are. The claim that they stem from a common mental structure is a further claim that requires evidence, for which there has been no evidence presented and I am not sure there is evidence.
Your position is less of the skeptic's position, more of the secularist's position. One ought not to have a bias for the secular or that which "seems more materialistic" or what have you. The proper skeptic's position is that, in the absence of evidence about what the gods are, or what they come from, one can only rely upon the evidence concerning their how they appear as recorded by stories.
(08-31-2023, 07:18 PM)A CRITIC Wrote: [ -> ]There are many thing which I can not confirm. In the absence of this confirmation all we can rely on are theories. The deciding factor between these theories is a quality call plausibility.
See above. But furthermore, this response is tangential to the point. The point is, you asserted that notions are dubious when they can only relied upon through secondhand stories. My response, which you quoted when making this response, says that countless claims are not considered to be dubious despite relying on secondhand accounts. Almost our entire worldviews are formed based upon secondhand accounts. I have not conducted more than ten scientific experiments myself, but like everyone rely on the testimony of scientists that they did do such and such and did produce a certain result. And this likewise applies outside of the scientific method, that we trust the testimony of people who have displayed that they are trustworthy. This refutes your claim that secondhand stories render something dubious. Your response quoted above it not really relevant to that inquiry, but goes on about something else. Yes there are many things which we cannot confirm.
The_Author Wrote:A Templist could conceivably believe this about the gods. But there is insufficient evidence to say anything about what they are. The claim that they stem from a common mental structure is a further claim that requires evidence, for which there has been no evidence presented and I am not sure there is evidence.
For evidence on this theory I would refer you to
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. I don’t have any quotes from that book to corroborate my point at the present, but its existence does gather evidence on the theory. I think I’ve posted before that it covered: brain anatomy, behaviors of primitive people in relation to their gods speculated from their artifacts and practices, texts like the Iliad and odyssey, and a look into modern schizophrenics.
The_Author Wrote:Your response quoted above it not really relevant to that inquiry, but goes on about something else. Yes there are many things which we cannot confirm.
Yes, it was non-germane. I didn’t intend for it to support my prior argument. It was meant to directly reply to this part:
Quote:If this were your standard of evidence, you would bar yourself from believing almost anything.
I interpreted this as a direct challenge between our antithetical characterization of myself and not a part of your further argument.
(08-31-2023, 08:57 PM)A CRITIC Wrote: [ -> ]For evidence on this theory I would refer you to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. I don’t have any quotes from that book to corroborate my point at the present, but its existence does gather evidence on the theory. I think I’ve posted before that it covered: brain anatomy, behaviors of primitive people in relation to their gods speculated from their artifacts and practices, texts like the Iliad and odyssey, and a look into modern schizophrenics.
Are you familiar with the phrase "just-so story" in this context? That is what that book is. That book can be classed along with the just-so stories of Varg Vikernes, who asserts that all pagan myths were intended as metaphors for reproduction. Only it peppers it with "evidence" of tangential scientific facts and historical references. To claim that anyone can even approximately know the internal psychology of prehistorical populations is utter folly. I can't even begin to claim anything about YOUR mind or even my dad's mind or my boss's mind at that level let alone Achilles'. That level of neuropsychological information can only be obtained from neurological observation.
The only empirical evidence concerning the gods is phenomenal. That is that they are described and appear a certain way. On one hand you have this assertion, and the other 400 page just-so stories competing with other 400 page just-so stories competing with Varg Vikernes.
The_Author Wrote:Are you familiar with the phrase "just-so story" in this context?
No, I had no awareness of it until this moment.
The_Author Wrote:To claim that anyone can even approximately know the internal psychology of prehistorical populations is utter folly.
You are completely right on this point.
The_Author Wrote:The only empirical evidence concerning the gods is phenomenal. That is that they are described and appear a certain way. On one hand you have this assertion, and the other 400 page just-so stories competing with other 400 page just-so stories competing with Varg Vikernes.
In this competition between these conflicting theories which of them do you think cater most to modern sensibilities? Which seems more respectable? Probably Varg Vikernes’ stupid placenta theory. I don’t really understand the need to use all this scientific verbiage if the fundamental point is so disappointing. It’s not like you have invented a way to summon the gods back to earth. It’s the same way with Christians lamenting the lack of modern miracles. “There were these super beings that existed some 1500 years ago and now there is no evidence for their existence except stories and weird carvings.” Julian Jaynes theory is actually kind of interesting.
How is Templism supposed to cope with the fact that it is less believe-able than Placenta stories and less interesting than the theory of early humanity being a radically different species then modern day man?
Sorry, but I am very pissed off. I thought Templism was supposed to be this genius machiavellian scheme to trick the masses and gain power. This is now obviously not the case.
To add to my last response, it may help to distinguish between a "polytheist realist" and a "polytheist phenomenalist". A polytheist realist would assert that, since the gods are observed, they therefore must be some concrete entity which exists in some other realm and periodically visits earth.
The relevant Templist statement does not assert that or deny it. When it says that the gods "are as they appear" it does not mean that they are "really" some more concrete version of what they appear as. Rather it says they are as they appear. This is the phenomenalist position, in line with the Templist doctrine of phenomenological empiricism.
Templist Canon offers a great number of wild speculations about what the gods "could be", basically just to stoke the reader's curiosity. But such speculations are not encouraged, and none of them have evidence. The gods appear as apparitions, as dreams, as voices, as physical people, all with a common humanoid, powerful, spiritual, and magical nature that is responsible for a certain part of nature and can be propitiated in exchange for requests. Whether these apparitions, dreams, voices, and physical people with these given characteristics "actually are" hallucinations, lies, aliens, wispy electrical signals, perennial archetypes of biology, or whatever, there is no evidence for so none of that is asserted.
But it is at the very least known that these particular qualities are observed. It is akin to someone, say Columbus, reaching America, and asserting that he reached "India" (or speculating one way or another), trying to categorize the undeniable empirical phenomenon of trees, beaches, grasses, birds, etc that he saw, and the composite concept thereof, being "this land whether or not it is India" . Only the identity of a landmass is much easier to chart than the identity of the gods, and any theory about the true nature of gods ends in a bunch of ridiculous speculation or Neo-Platonic or scholastic sophistry.
The gods are truly mystical to Templists because this is how they appear.
This is not a response to "Mr. Disappointed" but a continuation of my response to the First Critic. Mr. Disappointed asked something to do with why Templism releases a certain hormone in his bloodstream relative to another theory that releases a different hormone he perceives to be more positive.
LEJ Brouwer disproved Aristotelian logic. Why are u still promoting Aristotelianism holistically
(09-20-2023, 04:16 PM)Penis Wrote: [ -> ]LEJ Brouwer disproved Aristotelian logic. Why are u still promoting Aristotelianism holistically
You should make an account here, I want to talk to you. Or msg my twitter
(09-20-2023, 04:16 PM)Penis Wrote: [ -> ]LEJ Brouwer disproved Aristotelian logic. Why are u still promoting Aristotelianism holistically
I am interested in investigating this but you will have to tell me which part of his work disproves it.
Do you have schizophrenia