If One Person can do it...
Polytheism was the norm when religions began. Monotheism then supplanted it. The logic seems to be there's no need for these many gods, one can do it just fine: Yahweh/Allah, solo mission.
My question: If one person can do it, is there a need for even that one (person)? The curve of putative creators seems to be approaching zero anyway. Why not go the whole nine yards and adopt atheism? As it is we're already down to one last man as it were. Let's finish him off too, oui?
The late Christopher Hitchens said (paraphrasing), the transition from polytheism (many gods) to monotheism (one god) should be regarded as progress as it means we're getting closer to the true figure (zero gods).
My question: If one person can do it, is there a need for even that one (person)? The curve of putative creators seems to be approaching zero anyway. Why not go the whole nine yards and adopt atheism? As it is we're already down to one last man as it were. Let's finish him off too, oui?
The late Christopher Hitchens said (paraphrasing), the transition from polytheism (many gods) to monotheism (one god) should be regarded as progress as it means we're getting closer to the true figure (zero gods).
Comments (207)
Maybe monotheism just modulates (has modulated) so that yesterday's holy ghost is today's blob of rationality. Perhaps monotheism was (is) so successful because it mirrored/mirrors the ego convention central to our capitalistic culture.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/
As I read Wittgenstein and others, the language of the tribe is always already a kind of not-so-holy ghost that exists like a film or web between the nodes of the bodies of the tribe's members. Add to that the ethic of being 'rational' and 'unbiased' and admitting as really really really real only what is determined by rational and unbiased claims, and you have a reality that is rational (all else is 'illusion' or 'superstition') and a rationality that grasps or articulates (only) the real.
Perhaps polytheism appeals to and reflects as less 'uptight' and psychologically organized way of being human (I of course exclude who take polytheism playfully or think all gods are really just one.). We then simultaneously model the 'outer' world as one unified 'machine' and the 'inner' world as one unified 'agent.' Mirroring this we have God the creator and his single creation, which itself is a system that mirrors God's benevolent and organized mind.
Individuality, community, reason as the glue that unites us.
[quote=Napoleon]Laplace, where is God in all this?[/quote]
[quote=Laplace]I have need of only God's reflection general[/quote]
Your premise is wrong: monotheism was not born after reasoning that one God is able to do everything. Monotheism was born because one God prevailed over the other Gods because of cultural and historical processes that happened over time.
Once we realize this, we understand that working based on a wrong premise would be a waste of time.
Where does it say that?
I'd say: our bodies and the way they are trained by unique histories with unique reactions within a biological and cultural range of possibility. Imagine the tribe as a squid and each of us as its tentacles. The nervous system of the squid is based on (among other things) electromagnetic radiation (so we can read one another's scribbles) and the vibration of air (so we can hear one another's words). Throw in some technology (which language will help us invent) and we can send messages through the fucking vacuum. For instance, Voice => Light => Voice. That's a robust nervous system.
And each tentacle has its own malleable local and imperfect 'version' or 'cell' of the operating system (in fact the whole operating system is distributed, without an official or complete version anywhere in some non-tentacle brain (so the analogy breaks down here a little.) ) This or that tentacle can use its local embodied OS to come up with some new trick that can be passed on over the 'wires' of language, until suddenly all the tentacles know that trick. Other tricks go out of fashion and die off. There's only so much room, for the microchip-tentacle-brains in this mixed analogy are finite in their capacity.
THE END
We're all alike (that's what keeps us together) and yet we're not (that's what gives us our individuality). Now you see it, now you don't.
You've identified one of the items that unify humanity (reason); homo sapiens (koff, koff). What makes me me and you you? Our own unique brand of unreason/irrationality? Classifed?
Our friendly conversation together is part of that head. We (with our individual brains) are like neurons linked together in by English into a larger and better 'abstract' brain without a definite location, something that can correct out the malfunctions and distribute the innovations of any particular mortal brain.
Caligula inside, but only a few of us know it ?
That's actually not unusual.
Quoting EugeneW
I look forward to you sharing it, friend.
Here, for example: https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/21944/
You can just put on Google something like "from politheism to monotheism" and you will find hundreds of studies that show the complexity of the transition, according to the specific context of each single religion.
What about Incitatus?
Hai III! Yes, I thought so too, and wrote, for the sake of the story, that I actually didn't check. For the proper context. But last three weeks see an unusual (?????) activity about these things. Or do I see pregnant wives everywhere? Like a pregnant wife does? Time for a check. You made me curious. Still love your way to express! Keepem cooooming, dooz frash wints!
Is it that, as @Angelo Cannata thinks, the world ain't big enough for the two of us kinda thing? They must've done themselves in. Why, that cunning fox! :smile:
This is a typical note of the late descendants of Xenophanes and Plato, who started the trend towards a unified, unreachable being or reality. X didn't like the many gods. P didn't like observable reality. The result can be seen around us. Why can't many (objective) realities or many gods co-exist?
It is an opinion based on research, studies, archaelogy, criticism, done by scholars all over the world.. As such, it helps for further research. What historical elements is your hypothesis based on?
Where did I say this?
:ok: Nice! So, the human hive mind (network) is based on language! Didn't see that (coming)! It seems we had an www/internet long before what's-his-name invented the global network of computers using binary language.
It's not, as you suppose, a hypothesis. It's a mathematical pattern: from many to one to...zilch/nada/zip/sifr/zero/cipher!
Rest assure AgentSmith. Like panther god told woodlouse god: sit back buddy, lay back and enjoy the play.
Possibly, they do. Unless you're gonna go Thanos and find the real Dr. Strange among thousands of magic clones!
I hope I can (lay back). I don't think I can. I'll give it my best shot! Enjoy the show!
Black panther?
What's that?
Don't take it personal, Agent! I just picked two arbitrary examples from the story sent to me last week. Stroll along well!
That's what I thought! When I read your posts, it feels like an Ottendorf cipher! Great! Keep posting your cryptic messages and [s]we[/S] AI will try and decode them. No, don't tell [s]us[/s] me which book it is that you're usin', please don't. It/someone'll just steal your thunder! Kaboom!
lll employs the same device, more or less that is.
Quoting EugeneW
That's more like it. Buddha had to descend! Don't ask me from where, I haven't the foggiest.
What does all that have to do with the mathematical pattern: many to one...to...zero?
I won't but thanks anyway, mademoiselle.
I could be mistaken, but it seems you are fascinated by Lady Mathematica. Her curvy lines are seductive indeed. Her power to break things up, pull things apart, and divide, is quite frightening though. Be warned, Agent...
Good day EugeneW. What a fasincating day I've had! Amazing! Thanks a million!
Lady Mathematica! :lol:
What's your Lady/Sir...???
Plato's afterlife world is math-heaven. Only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death. Math approximates. We can't imagine though. Xenophanes reduced the poly to mono. Plato continued. From 1 to zero.
Not cryptic enough! You're not yourself!
Anyway, I didn't know Plato was the Christopher Hitchens of the Hellenistic world! Do you have any supporting documents, señorita?
How do you know math is "only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death"? :chin:
Math approximates. How, example?
Xenophanes was a monotheist, I have a vague recollection of having read that. Do you know why he became one?
Akhenaten was the first monotheist according to some sources. I seem to have forgotten to ask why he preferred one god to many? Politics? @Angelo Cannata (power games?) :sad:
Quantity has never meant a change in quality. Monotheism wasn't about getting rid of many gods, it was about having a single foundation. Plato and Aristotle required a single foundation.
The hebrews took a similar henotheist/monolatry route that the greeks did with their patron gods. It allowed a better metaphysical foundation for ethics, sovereignty etc. An obvious metaphysical development after that is pure monotheism and then some type of universalism. It has practical advantages over the previous stages of religion because it overlaps more properly with reality.
On the other hand, the more proper overlapping is the result of hypothesizing a reality consistent with monotheism. Which means, an unreachable unique reality to be approximated by science and math only, is compatible with a monotheism positing a unique OOOO-god, non-imaginable, and maybe approximately reached by meditation or prayer.
What's an "OOOO-god"?
Must be because I'm married 10 years today! Creepy...
Quoting Agent Smith
That's what Plato thought. He loved Xenophanes who disliked the many gods. They, unknowingly, were the progenitors of western scientific monotheistic thinking. Plato conjured a unique unreachable math heaven (Popper!), X did the same in the religious sphere.
Oops, soory! Omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
I agree with this. I think all religions have been developing towards a monotheist conception of Hod because that's what he is and we still have a few more conceptions to understand as we grow in our relationship with him.
Bingo ! In both cases the unity and systematically of the cosmotheology they reflect ? God is a paint at infinity ?
Quoting Shwah
I like the name of your deity. Hod brass harmonica !
Quoting EugeneW
Sounds like what we'd like to be. Coincidence?
Quoting EugeneW
Congrats!
I'd appreciate it if you don't reply to me.
Your explanation seems like a plausible one. I did check, and you're right. There the consensus seems to be that it was a social and cultural movement that took place over hundreds of years.
Quoting Agent Smith
Quoting Agent Smith
Come on AS, Angelo has presented convincing documentation for his position. You are being willfully argumentative and providing no evidence. As Stephen Hawking once said "Fax iz fax."
Much of the deep-seated meaning and the resultant seemingly disparate array of meaningful influence that religion has had upon so many different kinds of people throughout the known history of humanity is found lacking in atheism. That's as it should be, given that atheism is a lack of supernatural belief, generally speaking. More specifically speaking, it is often described as a lack of belief that there is some supernatural creator of the universe. The point is that people have attributed a whole lot of meaning to gods and other supernatural entities. To some, religion gives answers to some of life's most important questions. Some of these questions, atheism has no answer for.
It is no accident that so many different people from so many different corners of the earth throughout human history all found themselves with explanatory needs; gaps in their knowledge base. No, that is no accident at all, my friend. To quite the contrary, Gods are just one kind of supernatural explanation, and we invented supernatural explanations out of necessity. Nowadays, many atheists dismiss them due to lack thereof. Supernatural beliefs are part and parcel to the everyday lives of most, I would dare to guess. It was necessary. I mean, in prehistoric days, people took note of the sun. Some got sunburned, and put two and two together. Some noted that certain animals only came out at night, and because they wanted to eat them, those people would wait for the sun to disappear from the visible sky while planning a hunt. Others wanted to know "why" the sun traveled in the sky the way that it did. People wanted to know what it was, this bright object in the sky. All this only to say that the sun - like all meaningful things - became more and more meaningful as people attributed more and more meaning to it. In short, we do this by drawing correlations between the sun and other things. At some point, we gave the star at the center of our solar system a name, and began using that name to pick it out to the exclusion of all else, all as a means to talk about it. Some worshipped the sun, which is not such a far stretch for a bunch of ignorant humans seeking to explain stuff.
So, it seems likely to me at least that the gap in our knowledge base is the origin of the gods throughout known history, including the God of Abraham.
I find that many raised in some sort of 'Christian' background, have a hard time shaking the vestiges of the religion. Some of those remnants have become codified by American law.
Anyway, to get back to the question asked at the top of this post...
It's takes a certain kind of person in a certain kind of situation in order to have what it takes to lose their religion. I can only tell you my own personal experience:It's not easy. Many find it difficult or impossible to find personal meaningful contentment and/or fulfillment without relying somehow upon some supernatural belief or another. In short, religion is far more meaningful to religious people that you seem to realize.
I hope you don't mind a slight digression. I think the naturalist/meteorological theory of religion (that man sought religion to explain natural/meteorological phenomena) has a lot more issues as it would imply less naturalism still.
Is that supposed to count as relevant to what I wrote?
To what you wrote yes.
There's not a problem with it but you demonstrated a naturalist theory of religion and I was saying that it implies anaturalism even if you only use members of naturalism (e.g. it's not sufficient an explanation to say "the reason people thought zeus existed was to explain thunder" because it requires elements outside naturalism to substantiate it which it usually declares gods as being of the mind which isn't sufficient to explain the proposition as said).
Edit: For the zeus example, I think an asymmetry is in the structure as in you would need to show thunder is then in the mind (as the naturalist rebuttal here is in the substance of zeus) so if zeus is the best explanation for cause of thunder for them and if zeus is best explained by the naturalist as in the mind, then thunder would have to be in the mind all other things being equal if naturalism offers a better argument for the substance or nature of zeus/gods/religion/spirituality.
My guesstimate is that monotheism was an attempt to unify all theists like so: If there's only one god, your god has to be identical to my god. If we allow multiple gods, this isn't possible; your god could be different from mine or someone else's.
I haven't come across an argument for monotheism yet, in fact this forum which is about a decade old doesn't have even one thread that attempts to justify one-god theism. Odd that!
Read [math]\uparrow[/math]
Xenophanes' argument that polytheism is untenable is...
?
Quoting T Clark
@Angelo Cannata
Please read my reply to Shwah (vide supra).
Quoting creativesoul
I know what you mean. It (theism) is after all an explanation for many phenomena we don't quite understand (god of the gaps), also provides the meaning to our lives we yearn for, etc.
That out of the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the simple fact that people thought that reducing the number of gods from thousands to just one was the most rational acts in theology since gods were first hypothesized. Why? I offer an explanation in my reply to Shwah (vide supra) but it falls short of refuting polytheism or atheism, being a matter of convenience (unite all theists) rather than a solid argument that polytheism and atheism are false.
To All
Monotheism also appears to be some sorta compromise between the extremes of polytheism and atheism. Someone must've decided that it was necessary to find the middle ground in order to....what?
Another interesting point is this: if I can disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus, a necessary element of monotheism, why can't I do the same for Yahweh/Allah? Monotheism then shoots itself in the foot (self-refuting) - it's atheistic as regards Thor, Zeus, Krishna, and the whole pantheon of other polytheistic traditions and, in the same breath, if espouses theism (monotheism). Something doesn't add up, oui?
I can only say I think using a quantity explanation can't explain the qualia of picking any conception of God (especially if it's the same God per se).
That and the Hebrews monotheism and a lot of early types of monotheism actually avoided proselytization.
The argument for monotheism can be seen partially in monolatry/henotheism of the ancient greek city-states and the hebrews, it established sovereignty where accepting the whole pantheon did not. It created a particular ethical framework they could all follow, and develop, as one.
Monotheism has a better cosmology and ethical grounding where pagans gods are clearly imperfect and there's a necessary fundamental ethical narrative to hold them to. Paganism implies the errors of itself as fixed by monotheism. Aristotle and Plato used a single grounding foundation (prime mover and form of good respectively) even in a pagan society.
In any case you can't use an accident like quantity to ever deduce anything about the quality of the subject. It's an induction issue and is similar to trying to understand where apples come from simply because you happen to know there are 52,000.
Good points.
The seeds of monotheism exists in all polytheistic traditions - even if there are many gods, there usually is one that fits the description of The Dear Leader (re Christopher Hitchens) for example Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, and so on.
I don't quite catch your drift when you critique my mathematical analysis of theism by bringing up the quality-quantity distinction. Polytheism, Monotheism?
This is just about the most pitiful, lame argument I've seen since being on the forum, and that's saying a lot. You should be ashamed. You're lucky they don't ban people for dumbass arguments.
You made the claim that polytheism + atheism can equal monotheism and it seemed to be the only measure you offered to arrive at monotheism but intuitively we see an error with only using quantity because, as pragmatic as it may be for an atheist, it isn't a good explanation for why people pick a conception of God even if they worship the same God per se (so numbers aren't involved in this decision at all). Other metrics are needed.
Also, polytheist religions don't necessarily accept all gods and there's a lot of back and forth between who is best to serve. Priests generally served one god in pagan cultures iirc so qualia applies here as well.
:lol: Why is my argument "pitiful", "lame", and "dumbass"? Justify your statement, if you can that is :smile:
I'm curious, what's your argument for/against monotheism?
Quoting Shwah
Polytheism, Monotheism, and Atheism?
How much, in that scenario where two catholics disagree on purgatorism vs infernalism, do numbers get involved when they're both monotheists and of the same God?
How many apples does it take to intuit sweetness or tartness of the apples in question?
Quantity isn't the metric anyone should be using especially as it necessarily entails a qualia for deciding to use numbers in the first place.
Ah yes! Him too. And Nero's 'wife' Sporus.
FWIW, most of my encryptions can be sounded out. I think of it as a kind of pixelation. Joyce messed with spelling and proper nouns in FW, but that makes his stuff hard to pronounce. I try to stick with basic words and snap them chew gather. Cubist/impressionist word paintings. Which sometimes creep into a spiel.
Go on...
Polytheism vs. Monotheism vs. Atheism?
Explain why, if quantity is not an issue, religions are classified numerically.
:smile:
Quoting lll
Private languageish! Wittgenstein would approve/disapprove, can't tell for sure.
@T Clark Well?
If those two people are developing a conception of theism and both are catholics who agree in every other issue except purgatorism, then the fact that they're both monotheists implies the number one isn't at all a factor for them deciding whether they should be infernalists or not.
A person who is attracted to 21 year olds has no perversion for the number 21 and instead appreciates their perceived qualia of a 21 year old.
Failing all that, yes poly- means many, mono- means one and a- means negation (a placeholder for 0 but not actually 0). Those never go into anyone's decision making about accepting a religion or not so your metric you offered doesn't have enough explanatory power.
Y'all know about the Cauchy sequence construction of the reel numbers? Ignoring needless technicality, every real number is an infinite stream or river of rational numbers that get closer and closer as the stream flows. So 0 = 1/1,1/2,1/3,1/4,... But 0 also = 1/2,1/4,1/8,1/16,... This is just like a more complex version of 1/2 = 2/4, there's a way to check for equality.
The charm is the (pretty successful ! ) attempt to capture an intuition of continuous flow within a crystalline system of symbols.
Think of 'em as viruses waiting for a host, like 'private language' and 'language on holiday' were once waiting for hosts. Then think of skulls as bags of such viruses and the code part of 'form of life' as a loose collection of the viruses that 'everybody' has, that 'one' has. (Like one is exactly just one around here, friend, before all else, as one should always already know.)
Those fresh winds?
Agreed, but that's a subtopic.
Quoting Shwah
What does all this have to do with what I said?
Quoting Shwah
:ok: However, I'm not saying that numbers (poly, mono, a, theism) matter when it comes to a relationship with religion. All I wanna know is why did some people, whoever they were, find it logical to pare down the pantheon of gods to just one?
Surely, it's not moronic to ask this question. What's your theory?
Enjoy!
Witta luttareign!
If you want to know why then you can't use quantity to properly divide them. It's self-defeating. A lot of answers have gone over specifically or hinted at what the real distinction is and it's a more realistic framing of reality. Physics develops off a metric of frameworks with more explanatory power of the objects it is interested in (e.g. why Newton's physics supplanted Galileo's and why gr supplanted cm and qft is attempting to supplant gr and qm).
Religion is, like philosophy, interested in a general explanation of reality and the better ethical/ontological/political etc frameworks come from monotheism vs paganism and paganism has advantages over animism etc.
Edit: In conclusion it has nothing to do with numbers and animism has totem animal worship which is worship of one animal or one natural event and paganism sometimes holds just one god to be supreme so there is no paring down of gods as some atheists may like to frame it/think it is what's happening.
Chase us or bottoms wet !!!!! (My girl soak inky.)
From what I've read, it emerged as the idea of the one true or living god in context of a bunch of gods that were declared phony. You make a nice point, that selective atheism is right there in monotheism, waiting to mutate and kill its host.
This exciting but crude story from the bible comes to mind. It's a fucking movie script.
:lol:
I noticed too! Hodbless.Sounds funny!
Thanx! Ten years, yes! She's a bit worried though. I spend quite some time on the phone (laptop still dead,needs lapup). While I always said: all those people I see, constantly on their phone... Now I do the same. On philosophy and physics sites, but still... it's just the same.
Baal! Wittalottareign!
If you're actually talking with people and your feelings are engaged and you are actively using your faculties (which you clearly are), then I think it's a better way to use the phone than most.
Quoting EugeneW
I thought it was a good one, but the gentleman broke my heart and won't give me back my maidenhead.
Quoting EugeneW
Bell ! What a lotta rain !
He felt to give a meeting to his shines.
"If one could do it..."
Is that a justified premise? There is no empirical evidence. The termites build there fortress, the bees their hive, and the birds their nest. The beaver builds dams, the snails carries his home all along, the lobster uses empty shells. I won't mention homo sapiens, but it seems its modern variant worships technique, for some mystical reason. Modern HS wants to be an OOOO-incarnation of all gods? In that case, an OOOO-god comes in handy!
I'm zeroeing in on English, closing on in it. "A meeting to his shines"...? Spraying rain to show his bravura?
Here's a hint:
[quote = went gone slime]
The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.
[/quote]
I guess you could say that he felt to give a meeting to his shines is self-referential.
Might as well throw in:
What a bible passage!
But suppose Baal was asleep? And God took his chance?
Ah! A meeting to his signs! It gets nice and confusing now! The reign as a sign. Or the reign being a sign? Or reign just rain and a sign a sain? Language is magic! Seems words speak to you!
How to climb back? Once in mathematical heaven, one should just leap in good faith?
Yes. I mean, where is the empirical evidence for one god, with the name God, only?
Quoting EugeneW
What says Witty about these words?
It's hard to say but Hume did point out that creation could've been a team effort, and if memory serves, he didn't even call the members gods. There's no evidence of omnibenevolence (the problem of evil), there's no evidence of knowledge (error-ridden code so to speak), and zero indication of omnipotence (people need help, where is it?).
w
Good day EugueneW
Goodday Agent Smith!
Right. And the people are just worshiping power, not virtue, in that piece of the story. They'd worship an air conditioner. If Baal was asleep, I guess it's 'you snooze you lose.'
The 'spine' of that sleptogram is: He failed to give a meaning to his signs. My cheery theory is that we never know exactly what we are talking about. We say the magic word 'real' and hope it sticks to something. We do the same with 'meaning' and 'god' and 'truth.' Yet clearly the system as a whole is helping swarm the planet, so the semantic resolution is sufficient for practical work. I'm sure math helps, being the great exception (ignoring the umbilical court that runs from mathworld to realword).
It's 'worse worse worse' as the dork prints omelette sad, with a myth flu of missing chief. ('words, words, words' as the dark prince Hamlet said, with...) Or 'threw a gas tar glee.' As far as words speaking to me, I try to listen to them from all directions. I've loved poetry since I was a teenager.
Quoting EugeneW
I don't know. It's a beautiful metaphor, this ladder you just need once. If one were to judge just by this passage, one might imagine a proof of the impossibility of proof, a formalism annihilating the power formalism. With more context, the real target might be the fantasy that we can build a little machine, once and for all, that captures and dominates beauty and truth.
You haven't made the case while I've repeatedly pointed out to you the mathematically relevant words "poly", "mono" and "a", all prefixes to "theism"
Too, I did say that the relationship between us and the divine needn't be based on the mathematics of it although now that I think of it, that's false due to the next number in this pattern viz. sifr!
@Angelo Cannata provided clear, plausible, documented evidence that your interpretation of the change from polytheism to monotheism is not correct. Your response? "That's just opinion." Then you went on with your half-baked theory that, coincidentally, just happens to work well with your knee-jerk atheism.
Quoting Agent Smith
I don't have an argument for or against monotheism. It's not something I have an opinion about. I do have an opinion about irrational arguments for religious bigotry.
:chin: No, no, he has a point.
Atheism isn't something one simply picks up off a shelf in some cheap store. Most intellectuals worth their salt are atheists. I simply see little point in wasting time on ground already covered, waypoints humanity has already passed through. Don't you realize theism is nearly 8k years old and it began with human sacrifices (re bog bodies in Denmark, Ireland and Incan mummies in the Andes). Do you still wish to endorse religion? I hope theism is true, and you have the opportunity to meet all the people who've played the role of the sacrificial lamb. Do send us a note on how that worked out for you.
@Angelo Cannata, no offense sir/madam. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers and it seems you have a minion viz. T Clark to come to your aid. I wish I had one or two, but I don't. :sad:
T Clark, since you seem to have gone through Angelo Cannata's link, mind sharing your insights on the matter. Would love to further the discussion. If you're on the right track, you likely are, I see great potential with regard to discovering truth.
I don't endorse religion, I endorse arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice.
Quoting Agent Smith
I don't see what more needs to be said. Your question about how and why polytheism evolved into monotheism in some, but not all, cultures has been asked by many people before. A lot of thought, research, and study has been put into it. The answers they came up with are plausible and documented.
The primary religions of the most populous countries, India and China, are still polytheistic.
That's setting the bar too high in my opinion and your "website" will get fewer, even though high quality, hits if you catch my drift. Also you'll miss out on what a fresh pair of eyes can provide in terms of novel insights into a problem, old and new. Just a thought, that's all.
Quoting T Clark
Der candidat antwortet are...
Perhaps we can find a plausible answer to our question by looking at a similar situation in other fields/disciplines. Nothing comes to mind. Do you have one we could use?
There's a very good reason for having multiple deities: different properties/qualities/natures, especially if antipodal, meant that one "object" couldn't possess them. Since good and evil are opposites, Zoroaster posited two divine beings viz. Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Likewise, in other polytheisms too, different gods were personifications of certain qualities e.g. Athena (beauty), Mars (war), etc.
What signalled the end to this rather simple but intuitively sensible logic of polytheism? We still need Satan to make sense of reality or else whence all this evil?
Since you're into metaphysics, the above is an issue in that branch of philosophy, oui? A ball (can't be both) black and white and red all over? We instinctively split the ball into as many parts as there are colors (in this case a 3D peace sign).
Just to make sure I've got this right. Requiring arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice is setting the bar too high. Is that correct? Your directness is refreshing. I can't think of anything else of value to add in response.
Beware of adopting principles which when applied to yourself will only get you an F[sup]-[/sup].
Thank you. :smile:
I'm willing to be judged by that standard. When I fail to meet them, and I sometimes do, I deserve criticism. Have at it.
That's all that matters, no? I could be wrong of course.
Just curious, you mention two criteria
1. Knowledge
2. Reason
Why these two only? Creativity? Irrationalism? Is Taoism (one of your pet subjects) reason(able)?
As I said, if I fail, criticize me for my failure, as I am criticizing you for yours.
Quoting Agent Smith
Are you proposing these as standards by which philosophical arguments should be judged?
Quoting Agent Smith
Subjects aren't reasonable, arguments are. I think my discussions about Taoism have been reasonable. As I'll say again, if you find some that aren't, criticize them.
But I haven't failed monsieur! :chin:
Quoting T Clark
I rank/rate creativity highly, right up there with reason & knowledge. The reason it seems to have dropped out of philosophical discourse is because we're still in the early stages. Nevertheless parallel processing has been/is/will be done with amazing results. There should be another branch of philosophy specifically developed to beautify philosophy. Compare an automobile from the 1890s to one in 2022.
Read the link. A good-enough-for-government-work explanation for why polytheism was swapped for monotheism: Dread (of more calamities, catastrophes, Yahweh's wrath).
If so, shouldn't the holocaust (1900s) and the persecution of Christians by the Romans, cataclysms in their own right, have driven the Jews and Christians back into the arms of polytheism.
A one-way street?
I had a thought that I think we both can agree is a good one. I plan to avoid discussions with you in the future.
"The argument" can be very unreasonable though...
Yes. My point is that the term "reasonable" can apply to arguments but not to subjects.
I think subjects as well as arguments can be reasonable as well as unreasonable. For an atheist (is it me or is there unusual much activity abouts gods?) theism is unreasonable. Close to madness even. Is madness reasonable?
Given that you and I are reasonable people, does that mean there are some subjects we should not be able to talk about? That doesn't make sense to me.
Neither to me. That's why reasonable applies to subjects as well as arguments.
I've no idea what you're attempting to say here.
It is established, well documented, undeniable knowledge that many people across the globe of history have attributed all sorts of things to supernatural beings, of which gods are species. As the gaps in our knowledge have been bridged, the need to posit supernatural beings like gods has diminished.
The interesting thing, however, is that there is still room to posit forces of unknown origin. Hence, I find the agnostic stance the most reasonable one when it comes to the origin(s) of the universe, despite having more than enough reason to reject the God of Abraham as well as the other mythical gods throughout history.
I'm just saying assuming the relationship is justified (that zeus created lightening), changing zeus to be of the mind but not changing lightening to be derivative of the mind (and thus keeping the relationship that zeus created lightening even while changing the substance) doesn't get a valid analogy for what they were saying and positing which means it never captures what their religious or spiritual thoughts were.
I don't think it's possible to ontologically negate/debunk anything (because we don't have epistemic certainty). I assume we just can't derive some things from particular chosen metaphysics/frameworks (such as science can't derive ghosts or even math but that doesn't mean neither don't exist).
Well, that's another matter altogether, replete with it's own set of common problems as well as some that are much less well known. However, that being said, I do not agree with saying that we do not have epistemic certainty about many, perhaps most things. I'll leave it there, for it is irrelevant to this thread.
Were the Greeks justified in positing Zeus? That all depends upon what counts as being justified. On my view, logical possibility alone does not warrant belief, so...
Interesting, I assume belief is derived from truth or oughts are derived from personal is's (as they're just personal propositional statements). Whichever is happens to be the most fundamental truth for you is what you'll believe imo.
Edit: but I don't think validity is enough to be a most fundamental truth for anyone necessarily. Still needs to be personally sound.
Why? Am I now on your ignore list? :smile: Ask @SophistiCat, s/he has a browser add-on that lets you avoid certain posters you feel don't contribute to the forum.
As for me, I feel I can learn from you. So, no, I'll not download that charming piece of SophistiCat code. I can't afford it.
[quote=Stalin][s]Death solves all problems[/s]. No man, no problem![/quote]
Have a good day señor! Sorry it had to end this way.
Ietsism/Somethingism.
Ietsism, as far as I can tell, is proto-religion. Over the course of history, that something in somethingism was assigned the value of powerful, knowledgeable, and good anthropomorphized beings [god(s)]. Deism is, inter alia, a return to ietsisim, god(s) don't square with facts as they stand. Reminds me of The Force (George Lucas' Star Wars).
I was thinking more along the lines of quantum entanglement(spooky action at a distance).
Oh, I see. I never really understood why action at a distance would be "spooky"? Perhaps it violates the light speed law in Einstein's universe. That would be an inconsistency then, oui? Etiher Einstein is wrong or entanglement is impossible, but Einstein is right and entanglement has been experimentally verified. :chin:
Are you suggesting that spooky action at a distance is gods' doing? Why would they interest themselves in such seemingly minor aspects of reality unless...quantum entanglement has implications in ethics, the bailiwick of the gods?
You will find there is a limitation to how well they can define what they are talking about, and if they are genuine they might even say they cannot possibly state what they feel/mean.
Have you red much of Eliade? The Sacred and The Profane is a nice book.
We use words, correctly at that, without being able to articulate what they mean. Sorcery! Bewitchment (by language) [re Wittgenstein].
Sorry, was I supposed to have got something from that? Alas, my little grey cells are on holiday. No, they're underpaid. It must be a general strike! Oh, crap! Call the police! Call God! Call Mr. Magoo! Call...somebody for God's sakes! :lol:
For me the so-called ‘religious tendency’ of humanity is more or less about creative interpretation that happens to serve memory and recall through emotive power. It is not much of a stretch to see how such a power mental tool can fashion a ‘god’ as an overarching view of ‘reality’.
The Chorus in ancient Greece kind of outline what I mean by this. There is something interesting about how they were used in drama - and of course we have a rather myopic view of ‘drama’ in the modern world today but it was/is more ‘ritualistic’ in other cultures.
Clifford Geertz did some nice work in Bali on this. The ‘audience’ participated in ‘plays’ and entered trance states. In modern cinema it is easy to view ‘viewing a movie’ as something passive rather than an active engagement because that is how it has evolved over time.
That seems to be the case. Entertainment was not it; getting in touch with your inner child, lover, monster, saint, that was the goal.
Quoting I like sushi
BS, more like sublimation, rationalization on steroids. Trying to make yourself feel better about...
Quoting I like sushi
What hasn't?
Religion seems to be approaching an endpoint that many will not like: to be is the value of a variable, the x = 0. Does 0 be?
Not sure what that means? I was talking about instances where members of the ‘audience’ took on the role of one of the representations on stage - sometimes they would kill, kill themselves eat feces or numerous other things. Full on Dionysus crap
Why did you think that was relevant? I was freewheeling, winging it as it were, as there doesn't seem to be a point to the discussion except perhaps the one you had in mind. So, what was on your mind?
The relevance in what I mentioned above is that this is something innate to humans and can be seen in all cultures. It might therefore be worth paying attention to it if we are interested in ourselves, our place and the general meanings we foster life.
Religion fascinates me no end. There are some common features across all cultures that related to altered states of consciousness. Key triggers are key to rituals within religious institutes alongside numerous mnemonic techniques.
BS! Whatever floats your boat, sir/madam!
Quoting I like sushi
What's the problem if I act out being Jesus? Actors do that (you mentioned role play). I'm presently trying to simulate Jesus; not really though, more like theia mania (it's part of spirituality, not necessarily religion, and I can see now why "religion fascinates me (you) to no end". Give it a go!).
Quoting I like sushi
:lol: You're in the zone yourself! Enjoy!
Wise words! Would you believe me when I say I had a revelation that I saw in a dream?
Why is that bs?
For reasons I can't tell you sweet EugeneW. Search for the phrase: Darwinain sorcery! Oops! I did it again!
If you say so.
Triggers include:
- sleep dep
- fasting
- dancing
- intense focus
- hyperventilation
Basically, things that stress the body. These all feature in religious practices and they have some beneficial uses but can obviously be dangerous.
But if you consider the theology manmade, what substance has it?
If you take various drugs you can induce this state. Again, various other triggers can induce such states.
Try telling someone tripping on mushrooms that experience is not ‘altered’ in any way. That is what I am talking about and why your response seems bafflingly uninformed. The term Altered State of Consciousness is a scientific term to describe (funnily enough) an altered state of consciousness.
If you have never heard of the term before a quick glance here should suffice (not that I’ve read it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness
Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom?
‘Substance’? I stories have a certain impetus/‘substance’ to them. If you are trying for some kind of dualism I simply do not go into that any more as the phenomenological view on that suffices - as in I don’t care much about ‘the material’ nature of nature just the human lived experience (in the sense of religious practices and the general weltenschuuang).
As with stories, cultures and traditions, they chop and change over time. If there was some ‘god’ within this that I wished to put a label on it would to attempt to suggest to you that the ‘god’ you seem only able to vaguely define is more or less nothing more than the process of spontaneously creating narratives to map onto the world and said narratives affect through feedback.
That is why I view what you seem to call ‘god’ as the communication between sacred and profane (not that there is a real delineation between the two as humans implant some degree of ‘sacred’ upon every experience they have that moves them - and everything ‘moves’ us in some way.
A guy called Derren Brown refers to certain actions we make as ‘pantomimes’. One example he gave was if you walk down a street and realise you forgot something you articulate it by gesticulation or saying something out loud before turning around and walking back in the direction you’ve just come from. You will also act out such .pantomimes when alone. This is a step towards the ‘sacred’.
For a more obvious set of examples … birthdays, your bedroom, a classroom, a necklace and such. All have haboured within them memories and meanings that make mere places/items have more meaning beyond the ‘profane’.
Note: when I talk about ‘communicating’ between profane and sacred I don’t mean this literally. It is just an abstract way of expressing this. I’m not a dualist in this sense of the discussion because I’m coming at it from a phenomenological perspective.
However, matter of concern, either we've been misled by shamans on psychedelics or all believers are delirious, that includes philosophers of religion. Choose!
Vaguely define? The universe is a carbon copy of heaven. All creatures in the universe exist as gods in heaven. What's vague?
Maybe it is merely a … damn! I forget the term … originally an architectural term that referred to spaces between arches that serve no structural purpose yet were used for decoration … my minds gone blank!
Anyway, … Ah! There it is … Spandrel. Maybe it is a Spandrel, and some people suggest that art is a spandrel.
Either way there are benefits to ASC’s. Like with nuclear power we can destroy or create. There is a powerful property to such experiences either way and the main thrust of my point here is that it serves us to investigate. The most commonly reported and featured experiences appear to have been recorded in religious doctrines and I am saying the practices listed seem beyond coincidence in how they align with known triggers for ASC’s.
If something is beyond us it is nothing to us. To speak of what is nothing is a fruitless exercise.
The gods are not infinite and eternal. Heaven is.
Just to be clear, altered mental states are, I'm told, considered pathological i.e. they're mental illnesses requiring therapy. Is religion a delusion i.e. is atheism true? In other words, am I right that the variable in question, X = 0?
We have direct experience of the universe. Heaven is just as the universe. The difference is that it's divine. We, and all universal creatures, just act out what they did eternally.
When there are numerous cases of addictions, schizophrenia and other brain disorders being cured by use of psychedelics, as well as their use in helping people live more meaningful lives, I wouldn’t call such instances as being purely ‘mental illnesses’ when they cure said ‘illnesses’ in various examples.
It is an area that is seeing more and more research thankfully. It could all just be meaningless delusional mental sludge … it might be more than that though. My personal experiences lead me to believe there is more than simply a negative effect of such experiences (although not something that may be apparent or true for all!).
How do you know? If it's just a story why even telling it? If you have closed all gaps, what's left to conclude? The gods made it clear in a dream and some people on this forum helped even for the story to become. How do you know its a fantasy story?
I know there are things beyond my immediate experience, and certainly beyond my finite existence. That does not then give me a clear and definitive reason to state with certainty what such items ‘beyond me’ are.
You're on the right track, but I think you're missing something...a clue you've overlooked. Just my gut instincts, my intuition, that's all.
Quoting I like sushi
There is no God!
Quoting I like sushi
God Delusion, Richard Dawkins? The jury's still out it seems.
Someone has to be sick! Oui?
What makes a god difficult to conceive? They are just like us or any other cresture.
Indeed! Dawkins truly is a mental case...
Very often, for those that do make more of an effort, their view of ‘god’ is not really that much far removed from a physicists view of the universe - although the language and terminology is quite different and varied (but to be fair the same kind of goes when we get deep into cosmological talk on the physicy side!)
This is like asking what it is like to be a bat but on a level akin to asking what it is like to be a unicorn - I would have an easier time imagining what it would be like to be a unicorn though.
That's not what I think. I think they are just like any creature on Earth.
Define "belief" in such a way that we could write a coherent essay on belief, so that when we were finished, we could then replace each use of the term "belief" with the definition provided without the essay suffering from any significant loss of meaning. Do the same with "truth". Then see how much sense it makes to say that belief is derived from truth by substituting, yet again, the definitions for the terms in the claim "belief is derived from truth".
Generally speaking...
In order for one thing to be derived from an other, the latter must exist in it's entirety prior to the former. Otherwise, there is nothing to be derived from.
As it pertains - however loosely - to the thread, "truth" is a term once abducted by religion and capitalized accordingly. This was done as a means to refer to any statement as "Truth" or "the Truth", when it was believed to be somehow inspired by and/or coming directly from the God of Abraham.
They're not equivalent in my estimation but asymmetric. Meaning one entails the other but the other does not entail the one. I would just use the definitions provided under any general dictionary.
Belief
True
Both on Google. Belief entails true (or existence but I see truth in any non social construction to literally entail existence) where true entails accordance with reality. Ontologically I see no issue ordering them like that although epistemologically I'm interested in finding a caveat.
Edit: recursively the definition of belief becomes, "an acceptance that a statement is in accordance with reality".
If it is possible to physically effect a subatomic particle residing in one location by virtue of physically disturbing a different one residing in another location, and it is, then that observable event lends direct support to all sorts of supernatural ideas and/or explanations(including gods) for all sorts of different scenarios/situations that people find themselves in.
Some folk believe that prayers somehow work. Quantum entanglement provides a possible means for that to happen. Etc.
That's all I mean by saying that quantum entanglement left room for supernatural entities.
Yes, I know that subatomic particles don't really reside in one location, and it doesn't really help to talk like that, but those who take quantum mechanics as fodder for deep-seated beliefs in non physical entities do not understand quantum mechanics or particle physics anyway.
Nonetheless, interesting!
Quoting creativesoul
Nah. It's better to know both.
You defined the term "true". The term "true" is not interchangeable with "truth".
Normal definitions are okay, I mean that's how people use the terms. But, there are significant issues with both layman use and academic uses.
Caveat for what?
Mirror neurons.
Sounds like a (good) plan. Hopefully neither your friends nor your foes get wind of it. They would cancel each other out if equal in number and depending on how fervent their love, and how intense their hate, for you is.
What are mirror neurons?
I do my best to not make enemies.
I managed to tick off a mafia don. Luckily or unluckily, he was a bit s-l-o-w, in MO, not in mind. Here I am in the belly of the Sarlacc. I have a name to go with the face now, Jabba the Hutt! :smile:
Another 955 years to go...
Truth has a root in true.
The caveat would be interesting to see if we need belief to accept truth which are arguments I've had thrown at me where it works differently epistemically because we are an agent way under the domain of these terms like truth. If you believe that then I'd be interested in that counterproposal but I feel like entailment places belief as derived from true/truth.
They fire(for most people anyway) while observing another having a familiar experience. It's said to be the basis for empathy, although I'm not convinced of that. I've serious issues with how some people use fmri imaging to draw unwarranted conclusions. Those images are of increased bloodflow.
Oh! No one knowingly does evil, eh Socrates?
Indirect means, logic at its best, the apogee of reason! Is it possible to see without looking? Yup!
I can't make sense of what you're trying to say. The substitution exercise spelled out earlier renders the things you're saying unintelligible and/or incoherent. I've no choice but to move on unless this matter is corrected.
This remains to be seen. When the gods created the world/universe, they made use of a very special ingredient. Hidden variables. It's by means of these they can reach us. Actually interfere with their creation. Though its hard.
Well, I do not use the term "evil" but all sorts of folk knowingly take actions that they know will cause all sorts of unnecessary harm to others.
So, people knowingly do bad stuff all the time, and that holds good regardless of the origin of the moral standard.
The only way to parse the word belief is by a definition of truth. The only distinction between truth and belief is "acceptance of" which, being epistemic, has little effect on "truth", by being tangential anyways, but the only way to make it parse differently would be to say one can accept things that are false and I'd argue it's impossible to do so meaningfully and can at best be done by accepting the "false statement" conditionally.
I've no reason to agree with this presupposition. I'm agnostic on the issue of the origin of all things. Could not care less really.
I look at Hitler, whose evilness few (allegedly insane) people dispute, and think of him in terms of not what he was, but in terms of what he could've been. That kinda sorta gives me some peace of mind. I'm Jewishy.
Than there is nothing left to say dear reader...
I've nothing further until you offer the definitions I asked for. It's a waste of time otherwise.
No worries. Be well. Best wishes.
I already provided the definitions here of belief, true and truth all from google and defined a relationship narrative which would exclude equivalency and allow asymmetricity to support my original statement about belief being derived from truth.
I see definitions of "belief" and "true". There is not one yet of "truth".
It's here
Truth is literally rooted in the word true.
Edit: one needs a definition of true to parse truth or belief.
Quoting creativesoul
Where do you base this on? Who says they dont understand anyway. As if You understand it. Dont think so.
Hitler is a fine example of what can happen when people doing wrong to one another is found as permissible/acceptable; killing is believed to be justified for reasons of the greater good; an entire swathe of a population finds themselves in dire straits; and a cult of personality convinces enough of those people that some others are to blame and are somehow inherently evil and the world would be better off without them.
I'm reminded of the song "Cult of Personality" by Living Colour.
The Republican Party has successfully convinced many Americans that other Americans(namely "liberals") are to blame for everything from high gas prices to their own feeling guilty about how some Americans have been treated throughout American history.
:joke:
Make no mistake. I do not understand the mathematics. I've read extensively regarding the three most common interpretations.
If you have an example of a quantum physicist or a theoretical scientist that believes in prayers based upon quantum mechanics, non-locality, quantum entanglement, or the current standard model of particle physics, then be my guest to talk about them if they use their knowledge of quantum mechanics to support the belief in prayer.
From my experience, those who do so are lay persons who do not understand that quantum mechanics is math.
Life's simpler that way. If we dive into minutiae, our heads might explode from the sheer volume of data that needs processing. Very mathematical in spirit, but looks like there's a time and place for everything.
You just linked me back to your own assertion that the term "truth" is rooted in the term "true". You've still not defined the term "truth".
I also disagree with that assertion, but that disagreement may be the result of mutually exclusive notions(definitions) of "truth, "true", and "belief" being at work.
From the wiktionary: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/truth
You are using an aberrant definition and so all this work and effort should be on you. There is no definition which says anything other than truth being the root word true with a -th suffix and no definition of belief parsable without truth. Belief is a (personal) proposition which necessitates truth and falsity.
If you have no interest in talking about it then don't message me. There's absolutely no reason to be disingenuous and uncharitable.
You don't have any interest in being charitable and not being disingenuous so I have no interest in talking to you.
That's exactly my point. It's not math but what the math describes. Hidden variables are one possibility. And exactly these can be used for those in prayer.
My apologies. I didn't realize that that was a definition of "truth". In my defense, the format wasn't familiar. Usually people write the term followed by the definition. I'll have to return to this later...
There's a fine line between reading charitably and misattributing meaning to another's language use. I tend to try hard to avoid the latter.
By means of substitution...
I assume an acceptance that a statement is true is derived from the quality or state of being in accordance with fact or reality.
Do you agree with the above rendering of what you said at the top, because the above is what happens when we substitute the definitions for the terms "belief", "truth", and "true". The translation does not make sense. Given that the definitions you've provided were used, I have to reject your use of those terms.
Quoting Shwah
Either there are no such things as language less or pre linguistic or non linguistic belief or that definition is found lacking in it's explanatory power. It cannot take proper account of language less(non linguistic) belief.
This topic needs it's own thread.
I have no interest in conversing with you.
That's not true at all.
Be well.
That's not true either.
No it is not. That would make truth rooted in language use.
If truth is rooted in language use then either there are no such things as language less true belief or language less true belief does not require truth. Language less belief certainly cannot be rooted in language. The word "true" most certainly is.
Please stop replying to me.
I'm offering a much needed dissenting opinion regarding the utmost important topic. You do not have to read it. It's not like you're being forced against your own will, as if you're all tied up with toothpicks propping your eyelids open.
It also happens to be a response. I'm entitled. I've no ill will against you personally.
I'll leave your avatar name and link out of any future quotes from you. That's the best I can do.
:flower:
You're not entitled to harass me when I asked you to stop replying to me. I get emails specifically saying you replied. Please desist.