Is the Idea of God's Existence a Question of Science or the Arts?
The reason why I raise this question is because the philosophy of religion developed in a different era. Influential writers, like Augustine and Aquinas were writing with a different understanding of the universe, as were the Biblical writers.
So many ideas have changed this, especially Darwin but also more current thinking in the twentieth and twentieth century. This has often lead to the idea that God is a 'delusion', as suggested by Dawkins. Also, the way in which religion has had a negative impact on life, such as the people being encouraged to focus on happiness in an afterlife, has lead to many rejecting the idea of 'God'.
It is hard to see evidence of an actual 'God' behind the scenes. However, there are still questions about where life came from and why did consciousness evolve. It is not necessary to say that God created them or to fill in the gaps. However, it could be that the idea of God is a metaphorical truth, and that may be how Einstein saw the idea of God, and Jung too. In a famous television speech, Jung said, 'I don't believe, I know', referring to the numinous aspects of experience.
I realise that it could be argued that it is possible to experience the numinous without the idea of God. However, I am raising this topic with a view to querying the idea and images of 'God' , especially the clear distinction between theism and atheism, with agnosticism being seen as the other option. I am also not coming from a particular religious viewpoint, and my thinking is partly based on the ideas about comparative religion of Huston Smith on comparative religion . He suggested that both theism and atheism had their limitations. He speaks of dimensions or levels of reality, but sees theism as being inadequate as offering a perspective which is anthropomorphic.
So, I am asking more about how people see the idea of God as a basis for beginning to think about the existence of God. Is it simply best to dismiss the idea of God in relation to scientific knowledge? Or, is time to rethink the notion of God, in line with mythic or symbolic ways of understanding the philosophy of reality, including the underlying source of everything ? To what extent is arts and a basis for understanding the symbolic aspects of the God question, rather than simply asking about the existence of God from a scientific approach. Is science and art completely divided here , or is it about juggling different models to understand the nature of reality?
So many ideas have changed this, especially Darwin but also more current thinking in the twentieth and twentieth century. This has often lead to the idea that God is a 'delusion', as suggested by Dawkins. Also, the way in which religion has had a negative impact on life, such as the people being encouraged to focus on happiness in an afterlife, has lead to many rejecting the idea of 'God'.
It is hard to see evidence of an actual 'God' behind the scenes. However, there are still questions about where life came from and why did consciousness evolve. It is not necessary to say that God created them or to fill in the gaps. However, it could be that the idea of God is a metaphorical truth, and that may be how Einstein saw the idea of God, and Jung too. In a famous television speech, Jung said, 'I don't believe, I know', referring to the numinous aspects of experience.
I realise that it could be argued that it is possible to experience the numinous without the idea of God. However, I am raising this topic with a view to querying the idea and images of 'God' , especially the clear distinction between theism and atheism, with agnosticism being seen as the other option. I am also not coming from a particular religious viewpoint, and my thinking is partly based on the ideas about comparative religion of Huston Smith on comparative religion . He suggested that both theism and atheism had their limitations. He speaks of dimensions or levels of reality, but sees theism as being inadequate as offering a perspective which is anthropomorphic.
So, I am asking more about how people see the idea of God as a basis for beginning to think about the existence of God. Is it simply best to dismiss the idea of God in relation to scientific knowledge? Or, is time to rethink the notion of God, in line with mythic or symbolic ways of understanding the philosophy of reality, including the underlying source of everything ? To what extent is arts and a basis for understanding the symbolic aspects of the God question, rather than simply asking about the existence of God from a scientific approach. Is science and art completely divided here , or is it about juggling different models to understand the nature of reality?
Comments (200)
I hope that I don't sound completely ignorant but I haven't read Stephen Jay Gould. I will google his name, to familiarise myself with his ideas.
No, religion isn't art nor is it science by anyone's account that I'm aware of. There've been a few threads recently that asked the same question and they had some good answers. It doesn't seem like you have any experience with theism. I don't think it's possible to be atheists but the way you treat both is as whims of people's imaginations which would be so amazing if it was that simple and perfectly explained by the dogma of the 20th century.
The key question is the meaning of the terms ‘to exist’, ‘to be’, and ‘reality’. Scientific thinking, generally, is focussed on phenomena, and the principles (preferably mathematical principles) according to which phenomena behave. Scientific thinking is also primarily empirical, that is, focussed on what can be detected by the senses, also including scientific instruments, which are nowadays fantastically powerful. Most of the new atheist literature - and this is what interested me in forums in the first place - don’t seem to recognise what this means. So the question the empiricist will always ask is where is the evidence for any such being as ‘God’ - not seeing that, however one conceives of it, God is not a phenomenal reality - as Houston Smith says.
What has been lost in the transition to modernity in Smith’s opinion (and mine also) is the understanding that there are dimensions of reality. The phenomenal domain or realm is, as it were, horizontal - extending outwards to the horizon of the cosmos and the beginning in the Big Bang. But there is no vertical dimension - which is the qualitative dimension. In Smith’s books, he points out that in the traditions of the perennial philosophy, there is the understanding of ‘higher realms of being’ which of course are regarded from the one-dimensional view of modern science as mythological. But in those traditions, what is higher is also represented as what is superior, and nearer to the true origin of the cosmos, which is not temporal in nature.
This is represented in Houston Smith’s books like so:
source
I had a brief look and I can see that he separated the religious from the scientific. However, it does seem that he was coming more from a scientific background. The area I am more interested in is to what extent can an arts based view contribute to understanding the nature of symbolic reality. Of course, I can see why some may not see the need for use of the term God. The Buddha didn't use the term God, so I am not wishing to suggest that it is necessary to cling to the concept of God. It is more about an understanding of reality, not opposed to science, but not restricted by such a model, but open to a more symbolic understanding.
But, anyway, it's always seemed odd to me that people think if there was a God it would be self-evident. Considering how vastly different and may I say, dull, the world would be if that were the case.
You say that I don't have any experience of theism but I was raised as a Catholic, so I was initially coming from a theistic perspective. However, probably at that stage, I was more focused on Jesus than thinking about God on a metaphysical level. My own questioning of religion involved reading a lot of Carl Jung. I do read on the debate between theism and atheism, including the new atheism. I have read some earlier philosophy of theism but find some of it hard to relate to because it comes from a completely different worldview.
What is meant by ‘god’?
If ‘metaphysical’/‘supernatural’ science doesn’t have any input.
If psychological, there is a lot to say about about what human’s mean by the term ‘god’ and why this term exists.
In the later case both the sciences are arts have something to offer. In the former case there is nothing to say on the subject because such is nothing to us because we cannot talk about what we cannot form a concept for.
I've never heard anyone reduce God down to art or science and I could pick up the psychological vibes. Whatever your experiences are with religion, you communicated in a psychological manner at best. Why would any theist be fine with saying they worship art or physics equations? It seems you already questioned it.
Yes if atheism is to be correct then theism has to be wrong, ridiculous or at least extraordinarily reductive towards some particular otherwise atheism looks foolish and crass. No secular a priori justification provided a strong enough foundation for ending slavery especially after secular capitalism turbo-charged it. So I sorta wish it was "art" or "science" because it would make human psychology look circular, slavish and foolish, as it can only.
It doesn't surprise me that you have read Huston Smith as I know that you have read so much on comparative religion. I have read it twice and will probably read it again because there is so much to grasp. Previous to reading it, I had begun to think how limited both atheism and theism were. Then , I came across Huston Smith's, 'Forgotten Truth' and found that it takes the issues underlying the debate between atheism and theism in a much deeper way beyond that division.
You think those brain states are ‘god’? Why?
I think it depends on how we define "God". To some, God is ultimate reality.
In Plato, the divine is associated with truth and knowledge (Republic 508e1-4), and similar statements are found in the NT: “I am the truth and the life” (John 14:6), etc.
The thing is that people may think of God extremely differently. This depends on background and the difference between the image of God as Jahweh in the OT is different from that of Jesus. Different philosophers have thought of God differently, Gnostics and Spinoza differently from mainstream Christianity. Of course, it is not simply about Christianity because there is Islam and many different perspectives, including those of monotheism or alternatives. In a way, God can be seen as a way of understanding reality itself.
Plato's ideas on God are interesting and so different from the way people often argue for or against God scientifically. Also, some other ideas like Plotinus are relevant. It may be that the view of science has made people see the issue rather concretely. Of course, science is extremely important for understanding, but even then, it is a model not reality itself. It may be that science can only go so far in giving a picture. It doesn't mean adhering to creationism or even conventional Christianity, but a wider picture, such as the idea of the Tao.
You think those brain states are ‘god’? Why?
No, just that, in those situations, people have reported experiencing God. There is no absolute way to verify it, but certainly the experiences can't mean God definitely doesn't exist.
It seems that these experiences are just neurological matters. Or rather, we have no other objective way of viewing them so why bother?
:up:
Quoting Jack Cummins
That depends on "the idea of God" at issue.
I propose this "rethink of the notion of God"
Quoting 180 Proof
is consistent enough for my pragmatic (yet ecstatic) naturalism.
Yeah, I think "God" is nothing but (the most popular and politically useful) one out of countless interpretations (i.e. "ciphers" ~ Jaspers) of numinous experiences, such as "art" (e.g. E. Cassirer's Language and Myth, G. Steiner's Real Presences).
I think this is a great topic, especially in comparison to the hoards of boring Theism threads; In fact I really never engage in these discussions anymore, but here I go.
Part of my enthusiasm is because, while reading your OP, I came to a realization that I think is relevant to the topic. I was raised in a Christian environment, and no longer identify with that or any religion. But the typical anti-religious, anti-theistic rhetoric we see so much here still rubs me the wrong way, and I think I finally know why. Hopefully this could be useful to the discussion.
Very simply, the God that atheists criticize on a philosophy forum is not the God that the masses pray to in church. There's a complete lack of communication between the two camps. They talk past one another. Armchair TPF atheists generally don't know much about Sunday morning aunts, and Sunday morning aunts generally don't know much about armchair TPF atheists. And I think you brought up a few pertinent points as to why this is, i.e.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is a complex milieu. There are no easy answers, no smart-ass one-sentence (or one emoticon) responses so common to some of the atheist regulars here.
To me, the question of whether God exists is not important. I don't care. But I'm not an atheist. What I do care about is the Sunday morning aunts, and the armchair TPF atheists. I worry about the lack of communication, the complete otherworldliness of their dispositions, despite the fact that they're all the same type of human being. There's a grave misunderstanding underlying this whole theism/atheism debate, and it's costly.
The way I see it, true that art was more advanced than science back a millennia or so. If the divine were to develop affiliations then it probably was with art than science, the former more advanced (poetry, sculpture, paintings, decorations on pottery, walls, pillars, so and so forth), the latter a fledgeling, nascent and simple, too simple to get anything done let alone be an inspiration for something as sublime as god(s).
In good time however, the duo (art and science) began to forge a partnership, an unequal one, in which science was doing all the heavy lifting and art simply tagging along for the ride. The arts have gained more from science than science from art (metallurgical knowledge could be applied to sculptures, the mathematics of perspective meant paintings could be produced with the illusion of depth, and so on). Are the tables going to turn? Have you seen the illustrations in many books on science? There usually is an apposite work of art, in full technicolor, in each chapter.
Art has evolved from representations of people, objects, and nature where the idea was to create a facsimile to something I call "essentialism", a point of view that captures the essence of things and even if this is subjective, it matters not for the spirit is, all said and done, scientific, in the mathematical sense.
Draw your own conclusions...
Not true at all. The assumption here is that whatever it is that science is attempting to understand, art inherently doesn't understand and never will. So the statement is misguided by nature.
I never said that. Figuring out assumptions is not a walk in the park, something I learned the hard way.
Granted that I'm wrong, what's your take on the issue?
What, in your view, is the nexus between science, art, and god?
1. Verum (truth): Science (probably not the whole truth, but definitely a good start)
2. Pulchrum (beauty): Arts
3. Bonum (good): God(liness)
Hindu mantra: Satyam (Truth/scientia) Shivam (Godliness) Sundaram (Beauty/ars).
I may have hastily projected that on you; sorry. But if I did, I only projected a view that I read on here a lot, even if not from you specifically.
Quoting Agent Smith
A big question that I don't have the answer to. Off the top of my head, it's way simpler than we think. There is an intelligence ("god") that emanates the functions that we then observe and describe as science. We make art about it all. That's why art is the best.
I hope so. Can you show me how with a good example, please?
I just did:
Quoting Noble Dust
Why is that simple? :chin:
Why is anything simple? "Define simple". :roll: Anyway, it's a simple description of concepts that people make ridiculously complicated, hair-brained arguments for. I don't particularily care about how simple or not simple it is.
Well, you claimed that "it's way simpler...". I wanna know how and why, it's that. I'd like to know what complexity and simplicity are, you seem to have a good handle on these matters. :chin:
Let's make progress! Shall we?
It's so simple that you can't understand it. That's all I have, sorry.
Noble Dust is right Agent! The emanation of the gods is what we call the scientific universe.
Are you saying that you too can't understand it because "it's so simple"? :chin:
So our powers of comprehension hit a wall as it gets both simpler and more complex. Why do you think that is? Any ideas?
Jizz! :lol:
No; I understand it but you don't. You think too logically, so you can't understand it.
So, you're being illogical, but then how can one understand something, even if that thing is simple? Logic is the essence of comprehension, oui?
No.
Too logically? Explain that to me, please. How can one be too logical?
What is then?
I don't know what "the essence of comprehension" is, but it's not logic.
You mean to say you don't understand how you understand?
:chin:
No.
Then explain this apparently novel way of comprehension to me. It, as per you, has nothing to do with logic. What could it be, I wonder?
It could be they used their other side, not sure. They didn't tell me about the mechanism of creation, my love...
:smile:
"I winder"...
Oops, sorry, "I wonder"...
:confused:
Explain to me why logic is the nexus through which comprehension moves.
First off, comprehension and logic go hand in hand; eveey schoolboy knows that. To say "I understand" is to claim I can see how the propositions in question are logically connected. Why would I need to explain this, I frankly am puzzled by this demand!
Second, there could be alternatives to logic, as you claimed in your previous posts. You claim that you understand it. Your task, insofar as the two of us are concerned, is to show me this other way of apprehension.
Let's make progress!
Not at all. What a sad education.
Quoting Agent Smith
Yes, let's...
What's this new system (of comprehension) you have?
It's not new, you just missed out on it.
Anyway, I didn't mean that as a joke or an affront. I just think we're talking past one another here.
Can you provide a link to a reliable resource?
Forget it, our conversation, as it seems to me, does nothing to advance the OP.
That said, I was hoping to inject mysticism and irrationalism into the discussion if only to broaden the inquiry.
Some questions remain unanswered though.
1. It's simple and I don't understand it while others do. :sad:
2. Comprehension can be delinked from logic. Intriguing to say the least.
3. Noble Dust, you've been for the most part evading my questions. Whatever floats your boat, señor/señorita.
Have a good day. Let's not hijack this thread.
Human Agency.
Of course not; The reliable source is you. If you want to inject mysticism, then start here.
Human agency? Capabilities + Constraints, how exactly does the two link up art, science, and God to produce a pleasing/satisfying, or not, picture (of reality)?
It's not the religious content of music in this case that's having an effect on people - for Barker, Dawkins, and Dennett, the lyrics are semantically empty, meaningless as it were. The power of music to transcend boundaries like that between theists and atheists is art with a foot in both camps, oui?
Scientists too experience music in similar, sublime ways, and it's been repeated often enough that scientific equations when beheld or pondered upon and grasped produce mental states very like ones we see when listening to a favorite song or score.
I am in a similar situation of not being that concerned about God's existence but not an atheist. It often seems like the existence of God is approached like a for or against contest and, often this becomes a fierce battle. That is likely to be connected to the associations of religion, especially based on life experiences and, historically, religion has been emotive to the point of causing war.
At one stage, I was worried about ideas of hell and damnation. That lead me to question and think my way out of my Catholic or Christian background. However, atheism seems too stark and even though the images of God which I grew up with aren't helpful, I still wonder about the cosmological anthropic argument because there is no clear answer as to why evolution took place and even though consciousness is likely to have been emergent, there is no clear basis for understanding the existence of life or the spark of consciousness.
I have friends who are religious in a conventional sense, mostly Christian but a couple who are Muslim too. I find concrete or literal interpretations of Biblical texts extremely unhelpful. I was rather shocked to discover that one of my school friends believes in the story of Genesis literally, including specific individuals called Adam and Eve. When religious ideas are not balanced with science it may lead to a rather lopsided picture. I still find the Bible difficult to read because I come from Catholic associations and I feel fearful of the idea of the day of judgement and the issue of life after death, which is not dependent on belief in God but, nevertheless, the two are often linked together. However, I am aware of the Bible and other sacred texts as fantastic literary sources, which are able to capture a contemplative approach to life and existence in a different way to the model of science. So, I would argue that the strictly scientific approach to the God question, without respect for the symbolic aspects, misses something and the arts may be the 'missing link.'
I am certainly not of the opinion that one necessarily needs to believe in God. The way of seeing symbolic or numinous aspects through the arts is important and people's ability to do this is variable with many engaging in the arts for entertainment alone. I guess that I am saying that my own personal handling of the question is not a simple yes or no, and even agnosticism seems to be too much an aspect of tick box culture.
The question of agency is important and it can be too simplistic for people to simply seek explanations with religious beliefs, ignoring science. This is becoming harder, especially for those who approach philosophy. It just may go to the other extreme, with reality being seen and explained too rigidly according to the scientific model, with disregard for other perspectives. Rather than rely on science too emphatically, perhaps philosophy needs to incorporate a multidisciplinary approach.
In past eras the edges between art and science as played out in religious perspectives may have been blurry indeed. For example, there was the Christian story of the fall of the angels. It is hard to know to what extent this was based on Biblical traditions or the writing of John Milton's ' Paradise Lost'. However, the way in which I was brought up was as though such ideas were science. I remember telling my dad that a lot of the story of the fall seemed developed by Milton.
If anything the task may be to disentangle the ideas rather than fuzz them. But, definitely, the arguments about atheism on the forum are so different to the God who many pray to on a Sunday morning, as you suggest. I will even go as far as to say that when I began University I was going to Christian Union. The 'God' there was different from the forum. However, I can remember at the time in a class someone seemed surprised by some idea which I expressed saying, '..but you're in Christian Union'. I was being stereotyped and seen as 'Jack in a box'...
If anything, I am all in favour of juggling ideas from religious and all other perspectives. But,I don't mean that they should be fuzzed. What may be important is to separate aspects of science and art in order to appreciate both approaches in their own right.
If that's the main quest of your OP then here's my shot at disentangling art from science in re God. Science is about, as the late Stephen Hawking allegedly said, reading the mind of God (the laws of nature and nature itself simply God's thoughts). Art or rather our aesthetic turn is tasked with discerning the beauty in nature and its laws i.e. our duty, if we could call it that, is to first find out what God's thoughts are (science) and then marvel at them for their beauty (art).
For better or worse, even though the equations of mechanics may appeal to the aesthetician in you, they also describe in exquisite detail every ghastly injury people sustain in accidents and assaults!
What about an oil painting of the baby Jesus in its manger about to be lasered in the head by a time-traveling agent from the future? What would be the intent of such a painting? could such a painting be justified?
Or perhaps a painting of Jesus and his whole family getting chopped up by 10 ethnic cleansers who burst through their door and are killing every Jew in the room?
I am sure I could come up with far worse if I put my mind to it. Can an angel make love to a devil and enjoy it? They certainly can in art. Art like music are tools that can be used for almost any purpose, good or bad.
I cant see art as offering any bridge between religion and science by means of the fact that Richard Dawkins can enjoy the same piece of classical music or like the same painting as a theist might. They can also cite examples of both that one likes and the other thinks is crap.
I don't think the common ground between theism and atheism will be found in art.
I think the common ground will be found in time! We are a fledgling consciousness, we have yet to even leave our planetary nest.
Quoting universeness
I have to admit, you have a wild fantasy, uni! Apopstasist?
Don't get carried away by a little too much fantasy though! :wink:
And art that would offer a bridge?
Quoting EugeneW
Is fantasy currently under theistic ownership?
Quoting EugeneW
Theists and atheists can both enjoy an 'artist's impression' of a new, perhaps even Earthlike planet, discovered orbiting around a distant star due to the 'wobble' it causes in the star it orbits. But the theist will still suggest god created it and the atheist will still suggest 'no god required,' and the beat goes on and the artist moves on to his/her next 'impression.'
I could have went much further, for example, the artist could include different versions of such a painting and have the 10 ethnic cleansers painted as chopping up Jesus and every arab/black/gay/gerry/jap/pomme/asian/indian/slave/yankee/rebel/frenchie/irish/jacobite/heathen atheist in the room but, its a lot of work for one artist and I think I've missed too many groups from our 10,000 years of tears.
How about a painting of the prophet Mohamed? Can that still get you killed?
What makes you question that? I just say that the fantasy will always remain a fantasy. Let's face reality with a proper dose of realism. Where have we been in almost 70 years? On the Moon, 1 lightsecond away...
Im a theist. They didnt create that planet. It evolved.
:up: 180 Proof!
Since the day it's about one thing only: science, knowledge.
This sounds like a very familiar road for you and I EugeneW. You don't match or come close to any theist I know, you know I remain unconvinced of your theism.
Quoting EugeneW
What do you mean?
Quoting EugeneW
Yeah, especially your fantasies of god(s).
Quoting EugeneW
Doctor, heal thyself first!
Quoting EugeneW
70 years is hardly a single human lifetime, a spacetime blink! There will be a moon base soon enough. Easier to launch from there as opposed to Earth.
I meant, why is it?
Quoting universeness
It's alright uni, next week same time? Don't forget to make an appointment at the reception!
Quoting universeness
If distance doubles every generation you would be right. But it doesn't.
In how long? And then? To Mars? And then? Pluto? And then? Then it gets reaeaealy hard...
I think Im closer than allothem!
I am sorry if I did not address the points in your post. I will look at it again. I am struggling with thinking about the question which I raised. I am wondering where metaphysics comes into the picture and was reading a book on that yesterday. I will look at your points in relation to this a bit later today because I am just getting up.
We are talking past each other again. You suggested my suggestions for paintings were mere fantasy and I was basically saying so what? are you suggesting that only theists can fantasize? That's all I was saying.
Quoting EugeneW
Again I don't know what you mean here. Lost in translation somewhere between Dutch English and Scots English!
Quoting EugeneW
Don't worry ya big fearty, we have lots of time, we like reproducing. Maybe after we exist outside our planet and inside our solar system we can build generational ships or many many hops between space stations that we built between here and Proxima!
Where did I say or suggest that? Everyone can fantasize. Like in a painting of genes to which strings are attached making the human puppet move. This is how Dawkins sees humans. It's his fantasy. He claims though thag this is reality, and that's the danger. Thinking your fantasies are real or can ever can be realized.
Quoting universeness
Gods are no fantasies. Only in your mind.
Dream on spacer! What if we have arrived on that faraway planet? Will we mess it up again? What if every planet is colonized?
What??
Quoting EugeneW
Quoting EugeneW
Quoting EugeneW
You miss the main practical point I made. The more planets/space stations etc we exist on, the harder it is to make us extinct. If we are all on one planet then we can be made extinct quite easily.
I don't put a limit on your fantasies. You can fantasize whatever and how much you like. Just keep an eye on what's fantasy and what's real.
We get extinct not that easily. But if on all these planets we introduce the western way we'll get extinct easily even there.
That's always been my working assumption when approaching he question of God and talking to others about God. I'm the son of Roman-Catholic parents who grew up to be an atheist by increment, without any notable outside input. As my worldview matured, my concept of God didn't mature alongside it. Apparently, I was a pretty naturalist-minded kid in elementary school. A couple of years ago I met my old religious-education teacher, who remembered me better than I remembered her. She said it's hard to forget a kid defending the honor of snakes when hearing about the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. Apperently, what I took from the story at the age of six was that it slandered snakes. (In German, the word "Schlange" is used both for serpent and snake, so it would have been the same word.) I have no memory of this myself, but it sounds like something I could have said.
So when all you have is a maldeveloped concept of God that remained undifferentiated from early childhood on, you'll have trouble believing that otherwise smart people would believe something so obviously stupid, so you develop a sort of split sense of meaning: my God, the one I specifically don't believe in, is different from your (general "you") God, the one you do believe in, though they're both gods grown in the same cultural soil. (I also don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, or Amaterasu - but with the exception of Odin I've never talked to a believer). So how do we bridge the gap?
I've always thought metaphor, thinking of something in terms of something else, is pretty much the only hope there is. Take a the idea of a "creator God". I have to approach the creation part as a metaphor for it to make sense. And you have to bracket some question: it doesn't, for example, make sense to ask what God created the universe from, or who created God. I know it makes no sense to ask these questions only because of the reactions of theists when I ask them. No metaphor is complete. You circle around all the questions you can think of, and cross out the ones that the people trying to communicute with you don't find helpful. Then the questions you have left may or may not create a useful image for you. Nothing useful ever emerged for me, and I'm not really optimistic it'll happen in the future, since of most of the stuff I hear on that issue isn't new.
Basically, there's this metaphor with an extensive vehicle but not tenor at all. I don't get it. The only reason I bother(ed) at all to understand the topic at all is social. Spriitually this is all empty talk to me.
But here's the thing. What I have to approach as metaphor, someone else might have encoded differently and there may be no need to understand something in terms of something else. If someone's got an integretated understanding of "creation" such that God creating the universe isn't essentially different from a watchmaker making a watch or a sculptor making sculpture, then there'd be no need for a metaphorical layer to intervene.
And that might be why "God" is evident. This isn't scientific evidence. It's a basic intuition of a type that didn't grow in me.
But at the same time, that's not the whole picture, because there are atheists who deconverted from a believe in God, which involved rational thought. And this where I start getting confused when I think about "metaphor". It's obviously possible to think about God rationally and go from "God exists," to "God doesn't exist." I didn't have that experience. The experience was closer to "Wait, they really do believe in God, and they don't just pretend like with the Easter Bunny?" Though it wasn't a singular experience and it was far less tangible a development than that.
Basically, the only thing about God that really interests me is how minds work. Maybe the cognition of metaphor? Not quite sure.
You're stretching/straining that logic elastic to the limit again EugeneW. Extinction on one planet won't matter so much if we exist on thousands of them.
Right back at you and your interesting but very personalised version of theism EugeneW!
Even then we will go extinct soon. What you prefer. Going extinct for sure on all planets within 1000 years or surviving on Earth until the end?
:rofl: You do love that panto response EugeneW
Quoting EugeneW
Not only are you a big fearty but you are a pessimistic one. I don't subscribe to 'The end is nigh' sandwich boarding or screams of "We are doomed, we are doomed we are all just doomed!"
Then why you're so eager to go to the planets? We have everything here.
Here's some metaphysical speculation (plus 5 links therein); no doubt it's not the only way to think about your OP ...
I mean if we can double the distance of one lightsecond traveled each generation then we could get there.
Just imagine. We have found some antimatter device or laser energy drive. How much energy it costs to accelerate to say 1/2 to the speed of light. Takes about 5 years to travel to Alpha Centauri. For sure there is an habitable planet there. Say the spaceship has a mass of 10exp5 kg. What's the kinetic energy at half light speed. 1/2x10exp5x10exp5x10exp5=1/2×10exp15 joules. Okay, an ounce antimatter suffices. Costs 62.5 trillion dollars per gram. Thats about 6250 trillion dollars... Not million, not billion, but trillion. Dream on universeness...
I don't think there is much chance of me getting the opportunity EugeneW, so it's a moot point.
My projection of humans living outside of our planet and eventually somewhere like Mars and maybe then a terraformed Mars and then on to the rest of our solar system and then on to an interstellar existence, will take us thousands of years to achieve I think. It's about our distant future needs, not our current needs, but the latter does 'speak to' the former.
Quoting EugeneW
Money is a human invention, we can dispense with it altogether. You need resources, human ingenuity, human labour and human willpower, money is just unnecessary capitalist BS.
Thanks for the link and it was useful. However, yesterday I was so busy reading that I felt on another planet, which also happens often. Also, I tripped over getting off the bus and have a swollen, cut and bruise above my eye, so I look and feel like a gothic monster.
Generally, the thinking which I did about agency lead me to think about the nature of causes but I am aware that there is a new thread on causes here, which I haven't read yet. So, I began reading a book which I had on my shelf, 'Five Proofs of the Existence of God' by Edward Feser( 2017).t looks at the ideas of Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Leibniz.
.I found it interesting because I haven't read that much of such writers and my reading on the existence of God has mainly been writers like Richard Dawkins and ' The Four Horsemen'. But , I have been planning to read more since last year's debate between you and Amen on atheism is not logical. Strangely, I am aware that I have read more from the perspective of atheists even though I don't consider myself an atheist. Perhaps I will end up one if I read more of the theists' ideas.
The particular ideas which I was thinking about were Aristotle on causation and the chapter went on to describe how Bertrand Russell. Towards the end of the chapter of causes in relation to the findings of science. However, the am aware that there is a thread on evidence in science for God, which I discovered when I was writing my own. So, that lead me to reflect that this should mean that mine should be developed a bit differently, but I can't escape thinking about science at all.
The aspect which I found interesting is about the nature of potential and change, pointing to the way in which causes may not be straightforward. The author states that 'relativity in no other way undermines the principle that 'whatever goes from potential to actual has a cause'. However, ' The four-dimensional block universe interpretation of relativity theory approximates the notion of without potentiality...since causation involves the actualization of potential, any description which leaves out one or the other is going to leave out causation..'
So, I began thinking about the possibility of absence of causation, which would not necessarily support the idea of God's existence, or may indicate the opposite. Of course, I am not a physicist, so should not get too carried away, out of my depth.
I will also speak of the other book which I have been reading but open a new post because this has become long.
One aspect which he refers to, which I think is interesting is the ideas of chaos, nothingness and the void. He says,
'Many equate the void with nothingness. But this is a serious mistake. Nothingness is a philosophical concept, an abstraction, that irreducible opposite of being that no one has succeeded in defining better than Parmenides: 'Being is, and can never be; non- being is not, and can never be'.
I won't go on further because it might be seen as if I am going off in a strange direction of thought in relation to my topic, and I don't wish to derail my own thread. However, the topic is large and that was what I was reading and thinking about yesterday in relation to agency, even though I did not manage to explain it all in the reply I wrote. So, the theme which I am thinking about the that of potential underlying life and everything.
Just one other thought. You say that philosophy is multidisciplinary. This is true, but it may be that science is getting the lion share increasingly, and even I have begun to go in that direction in what I have been thinking about.
I've nothing to say about your interest in Aristotle's physics/metaphysics. I don't think his work is at all helpful in understanding the physical world especially in light of the physical sciences since Isaac Newton. But curiosity thrills the cat – so carry on and share anything you find interesting in the contemporary philosophical context.
As for that aborted debate with 3017amen, the less said the better; I'm glad, however, it spurred you on to read more than "New Atheist" polemics and irreligious grousing. Though I'm not impressed with Edward Feser, at least he is a philosopher who takes seriously (i.e. scholarly) "existence of God" questions.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, I've pointed this out in quite a few threads featuring the confusion of physical "nothing" with metaphysical "nothingness" and the inapplicability of the latter to modern physics, or natural sciences.
I will look into the books which you mentioned, although I have a number of them queuing up in piles, waiting to be read. I have one with some writing by Cassirer on myth and he was someone you recommended on myth in the past. It is great that we are able to share recommend reading on this site, and the only problem is that sometimes there are just not enough hours in a day to get through them. I can usually read about 5 at a time, giving them turns, but anymore than that gets a bit confusing...
You speak of art's lack of ability to explore beyond beauty but there is not simply visual art but literature and music in particular. There is the whole notion of the gothic fantasy and horror, which also gives scope for questions about metaphysics and an arts based approach to the concept of God.
It is interesting how some people alter their childhood concepts of God and religion in general. Having come from a Catholic background, I saw all kinds of contradictions. As a teenager, I was extremely religious, more so than most of my friends. Strangely, in the last few years some of my closest friends, a few who I knew since school, have become so religious and talk about God even on the phone. They are aware that I am interested in philosophy and that I get involved in discussions about God on a philosophy site. They are a bit bewildered at times by this.
This is not mentioned in your post, but was what I thought after reading and reflecting on what you wrote. I lose count of the times I am advised by friends and other people to pray, which involves a relationship between self and other, as God, as suggested by Martin Buber in 'I and Thou'. This relationship is central in relation to the idea of the existence of God, which is different from philosophy questions itself. It is about a personal relationship with God, which goes away once a person stops believing in God. As I am not a complete atheist I do pray at times, but more as a form of meditation.
I guess you found the reviews linked interesting enough for you to investigate those books. :cool: :up:
I am definitely interested because I wish to read as widely as possible. Apart from discussion with forum members, one aspect which I do find helpful is direction, areas and specific books being recommended. Obviously, it takes time to follow them up but I definitely have found that my reading life has opened up so much in the 18 months since I first joined. The more one searches the more there is to find...
I think we've had similar experiences; this has been mine as well. I sometimes think that my interest in philosophy, mysticism, and etc., are all simply a form of mental disease and a reaction to trauma instilled by fear of Hell. Weirdly, this still hasn't lead me to become "anti-religion", so to speak. To the contrary, I find religion fascinating to study, and I think the bashing of religion will always make me uncomfortable. Maybe someday I'll gather all the thoughts and make a thread, who knows.
Anyway, to try to come back to the OP, which I think hasn't really been properly addressed, yes, I think the arts deal with religion more appropriately than science does. But it's not clear at all to me what the relationship is between religion as it's practiced, religious symbolism, and art and it's lineage of being largely descended from religious symbolism. I think religious symbolism is rooted in something much more ancient that we aren't fully able to grasp. I'm reminded of Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances". I'm too tired at the moment to dive into it to give you a proper summary, but essentially the idea is that, in ancient times, the human experience of reality, sans technology as it we know it now, was a different experience, one of "direct participation" in the natural world. Imagine the best moments you've had of being out in nature and experiencing its beauty, experiencing a sense of transcendence (and not to mention being out in a thunderstorm or dangerous weather); and then imagine that as your day to day, minute to minute experience of life...paired with the constant struggle for survival. I think religious symbolism might have it's roots in an idea like this. We project our modern understanding of symbolism on the past, to our detriment. It was a different experience at the time. We shouldn't assume we understand what the experience of the ancients was, in relation to the things they expressed in a religious manner that have survived in modernity.
Nothing like this connection between god and science is to be found with respect to aesthetics (art).
Perhaps beauty is morally ambiguous (gorgeous but cold-hearted or patently evil, combinations that do occur in reality). However, even knowledge is so (evil genius, a trope of Hollywood blockbusters, Marvel and DC comics). On balance, knowledge is probably more bonum-friendly than beauty: Avidya, piggy, as the root of all evil vs. the lesser evil of vanity-beauty, birdie, re: Buddhism).
It is interesting that some people who have been brought up with religious ideas and fear of hell become fascinated by religion rather than rejecting it completely. However, my own experience has many incongruities. I was reading Nietzsche's writings while attending church regularly, not even seeing the contradiction because I simply loved his writings. Also, I was fascinated by Hinduism while attending Christian Union, even though people there were speaking of how following Jesus was the only way to salvation.
The symbolic aspects of religion and the idea of God are apparent in religious art and poetry. Julian Jaynes speaks of the development of consciousness in accordance with religious beliefs in culture. He speaks of how earliest human beings had less of a clear distinction between inner and outer reality, with projection onto Gods. He saw this as connected to hallucinatory experiences. Also, he argues how this was significant in relation to the development of art, song and poetry in the emergence of language. Also, anthropology shows so much about the origins of the symbolic aspects, with the imagery evoked in shamanism and also the understanding of the goddess, which preceded the idea of the gods and one god.
Art is not simply about beauty but about the symbolic dimensions, including the imagery of angels and archangels in the scheme of the divine hierarchy. This is captured in religious art and icons. Some of this was with a sense of awe and stained glass windows, which capture light as being about the transformative properties of light. Also, the ten commandments forbade the making of images of God, but the artists began to depict God in the form of art work depicting Christ.
In some ways the appreciation and awe of the sacred and God was about beauty, even interconnected with the beauty of cathedrals and churches. Also, in some ways worship may have been connected with a sense of wonder at the beauty of life and creation.
The argument of design can also be sen in support of the existence of God can also be seen as related to aesthetic appreciation of nature as an expression of the divine.The opposite is true as well. Evil as a symbolic form of ugliness was also connected to querying the existence of God on the basis of difficulties of accepting the notion of an all powerful God amidst so much natural and moral evil.
Where do you get that from?
You kinda shot yourself in the foot when you said that. I hope it was deliberate but then it looks accidental. Never mind, it doesn't matter, in the long run (we're all dead). Art is, I feel, a mode of expression (a language as it were) and as that, it can be used to convey thoughts + emotions; I might be able to translate (say) Wittgenstein from text into a painting or, if one is creative enough, into music (the tractatus-logico-philosophicus can be made into a rap song :grin: ). When looked at this way the confusion as to what art is is cleared up, oui? Don't think of art as a subject that has a finger in every pie and thus impossible to define; rather consider it as a language translating texts/ideas/feelings/whatnot into images, sounds, colors, and so on.
As for the divine in art, can a watering hole that caters to all animals be said to favor any single one animal? Seems like a good question, you be the judge.
Knowledge, on the other hand, is a God attribute, explicitly mentioned as omniscience.
That's all from me (at the moment).
I came across the idea of the goddess preceding the Gods in anthropology and mythology, with reference to early art depicting goddesses. It may be that the development of patriarchal religion suppressed this. Jung speaks about the way in which religion suppressed the feminine principle. In particular, he speaks of the Trinity as an image of God which leaves out the feminine aspects, even though Catholicism holds Mary in esteem. He suggests that a more psychological whole model would be a quarternity as opposed to the Trinity, incorporating evil and the feminine aspect. Here, attention can be seen as a tension between the two Marys, the Virgin Mother and Mary Magdalene.
It is also worth thinking how many dispute the idea of a 'male' God. I remember having an English teacher at a school who was a feminist and used to refer to God as 'she'. Some people, including teachers, pupils and parents were horrified because it was a Catholic school. I even remember one boy, who was fairly sexist leaving school without finishing his studies because he was so unnerved by the teacher and her challenging views. I simply was amused by her and how different she was from other teachers.
Of course, many prefer to see God as beyond gender, because God as an ultimate reality doesn't have a body as a literal 'Father'. It is possible to see God as androgynous, incorporating the masculine and feminine principles.
I am not sure if I said art is not simply about beauty accidentally or intentionally but I would say that this is how I see it. So, it probably is more intentional, in the way in which aesthetics does come into play. Part of the issue though would be that aesthetics is partly subjective, although there may be some objective aspects, or measures of what is considered to be beauty. But, in the religious contexts there is some symbolic aspects of ugliness as well, such as represented by gargoyles.
Art can also be seen not simply as about works to be viewed and appreciated. It is about the processes and mental states of those who created it. In this sense, the arts, including music and literature can be about the dark and negative aspects of life. This is also in connection with the idea of seeking God, as depicted in dark and negative mental states. This is captured in the ideas and writing of St John of the Cross, ' The Dark Night of the Soul.' Even mysticism captured the alternation of heaven and hell, bliss vs despair and the ugly or diabolical, or even Satan as the opposition to God.
I don't see why you think figurines are not related to religious worship. I can't see why else they would have been created. The earliest human beings were not likely to make images in the way that artists do today. They did not come from such a clear distinction between the literal and the symbolic. That is because they were not coming from the knowledge of science or the deconstruction of postmodernism. They were in a philosophical climate without a clear distinction between art and science, bound up with magical and animistic ideas, which were the foundation for the development of religion.
Art is definitely communication and always has been. However, the nature of art has changed at different periods of history and even aesthetics has an intersubjective aspect. Art is bound up with cultural values, including ugliness and beauty. There is also a distinction between art made in secular and religious contexts. The majority of art made in the twentieth first century is secular based although there the arts are still used by some as aspects of religious or spiritual expression.
Real anthropologists and archaeologists are VERY careful about applying opinions and personal views to ancient artefacts of which they have little to no information about.
There is nothing wrong with conjecture as long as it is understood as conjecture. Cognitive Archaeology can help a little in this area too.
Art-Science-God: Divine Simplicity as in ; ) or in more familiar form :wink: Also [math]\downarrow[/math]
I do take your point. It would be interesting if Barbie Dolls were taken as objects of worship. I came close to being misunderstood at work over my lion on my key ring, who I called Leonardo. I had a manager who discussed this in supervision and I think that she thought that I was psychotic and saw Leonardo as 'real'. There is a danger of speculation based on lack of direct understanding of the meanings of specific people.
The basis of my idea was mainly based on the ideas of a tutor who taught an anthropology evening class. He was a radical Marxist anthropologist, Chris Knight. He has published his ideas, which are backed up some research into the culture of the Aborigines. However, his views may be a bit 'alternative' rather than mainstream.
Art is based on the exchange of images or the imagination through the various arts and forms. To some extent, it can be possible to have private art which is about the personal discovery. However, art which is shared through exhibitions, magazines or other forms of transmission is about conveying ideas or feelings, in relation to an audience.
You say that art and science may be Divine Simplicity. This may be true sometimes, but it can be more complex because it may be that there are contradictions in the perspectives. For example, the idea of the fall at the beginning of the world may be recognized as a mythical description but this is not the established understanding of science. In this respect, art and science can be like two vastly different languages.
Sorry Jack, I don't know how my typings on this thread, gave that impression. I was going for the exact opposite. I was typing about art and/or musics' ability to promote that which is NOT related to beauty in any way. The paintings I was suggesting would not be generally considered beautiful.
Quoting Jack Cummins
As I am sure you know, art and music can be treated as mere aesthetics by individuals or they can be supportive towards theism/atheism/revolution/political doctrines etc.
In the OP, there is:
Quoting Jack Cummins
I took this to mean that you were suggesting that all of the quite stunning and awesome religious art (for example) produced by Rembrandt, Michaelangelo etc can act as a basis for understanding the human need for/tendency towards/attraction to the god posit. They glorify the image and idea of god and its subordinates and I thought you were suggesting that this 'human effort' towards manifesting god pictorially has meaning and value towards understanding the 'human need,' for god.
If I am correct towards your intention in the OP then I disagree and I firstly suggested paintings of Dante's 9 circles of hell to suggest that art has also used THREAT to try to enforce submission to the god posit. I then tried to suggest how art could be used by the atheist side to counter the 'glorification' art used by religions now and in the past.
Same in music, I can counter glorification praise hymns with songs that glorify and praise humanism.
So I don't think that art or music's is a way to understand the human need for gods. I think it's further evidence of religion's stealth tactics to maintain the power/position/personal wealth of its main human leaders. Just in the same way that the pope attempts to 'tickle the aesthetic pleasure centers of humans,' when he appears in all his finery with gold accents and a version of a druidic pole (a.k.a Shepards/Gandalf/Merlin's staff) with a symbol of the crucified JC stuck on the top (probably also gold).
In my opinion humans still need god due to their inherited primal fears and fear/dissatisfaction with the oblivion that science suggests occurs after death.
It may well be Jack that I have just misunderstood the main intentions or your OP and I have deflected at a (as @Agent Smith states as my tendency) tangent. :smile:
Yet from a certain vantage point, it is quite simple, oui. From another, one would have to throw up one's hands in sheer exasperation and utter frustration, going "what a hairy problem!" Novacula occami?
Look at this:
Simplicity, no? Outlines only as far as I can tell.
I do agree that art can be used as a 'threat', even to evoke fear, especially in imagery such as imagery of hell. I am not saying that representations point to a need or to an actual reality behind these. So much is human construction and interpretation.
One aspect of this is the idea of music played in reverse having a sinister aspect. One main example of this is the example of people finding the word 'Satan is God' if the Led Zepellin Song, 'Stairway to Heaven' is played backwards. Whether this was intended or simply an interpretation is questionable because any song which has the word dog in it is God back to front.
I hope this example is not too obscure in response to yours because sometimes I go into a flight of ideas. It may be that in some ways there is a need for belief in God or a spiritual dimension, as Jung argued in, 'Modern Man in Search for Soul'.However, it may be that the idea of God can become toxic or unhelpful. It could be asked where this will go in the future? Will human beings outgrow the need for God and religion or will this exist as long as human beings exist?
For me this is vital to understanding the good and bad aspects of what the human storytelling tradition has brought us to. From the first moment, our ancient ancestors told the first story about the big shiny that moved across the sky and how they once saw it fight against the shadow which tried to eat it and how the shiny won the fight in the end and how it chases away the dark and warms us etc.
From here to the god posit seems a very small step. So-called 'Chinese whispers' will do the rest to go from theism to doctrinal religion. It's very basic 'human construction and interpretation,' art and music are just ways to embellish the storytelling.
What do you think of the following two suggestions, one is pure conjecture and completely from 'human interpretation.' and the other is based on 10 years of research by the author of 'Caesars Messiah,' Joe Atwill.
If you do bad things, you don't answer to god, you answer to satan. It is satan who administers your punishment not god. Satan is therefore not an enemy of god. It is gods enforcer, it works with god to punish transgressors.
In Greek the name 'Mary' means 'sea of bitterness or rebellious female'. Atwill suggests that based on his research, the name was used by Roman soldiers for any female relatives or wives of male Jewish rebels, in the same way that, nancy was used to refer to homosexual males or 'butch' for homosexual females or 'Sheila' for any Australian female etc. The gospels are written in Greek and that's is why so many of the female characters in the gospels are called Mary.
I am not suggesting that these two suggestions above are true and cannot be refuted. I am just demonstrating my agreement with your comment regarding 'human construction and interpretation.'
Yahweh's consort/Goddess: Omniscient (science) + Omniaesthetic (art) + Omnibenevolent (ethics).
Perhaps our fascination with art (beauty), which is to a fault, is a sign that we yearn for a female deity, the Goddess who sits next to God.
In a way, your description of the female partner of God corresponds with the muses as a source of inspiration in the arts. There is s strong connection between what is projected onto other people and what onto God. In mysticism and the metaphysical poets there was a blending of the idea of love of a human partner and God, or the Goddess. So, yes the quest for a female deity and lover are connected.
Jung also spoke of Sophia, or Wisdom, as the feminine principle, important in balance. The Gnostic Gospels also pay attention to such symbolic connections, with the suggestion of Mary Magdalene as Jesus's lover.
I think that the idea of Satan as being the accuser or punisher makes a lot of sense, and this is a way of seeing the symbolic significance of the God vs Satan relationship, rather than the historical idea of good and evil in a battle against one another.
Your suggestion of Mary meaning a rebellious female is something which I was not aware of. That is because in the representation of the idea of Mary which I came across the concept of Mary is often of someone who is obedient to God, and pure in the sense of being a Virgin, or the idealised image of motherhood.
Does that "we" include women?
As per Wikipedia, there are 3 muses
1. Aoide ("song" or "tune") which I intepret as innate talent.
2. Melete ("practice" or "occasion") which is praxis, a must.
3. Mneme ("memory"), one must recall the "song" and what was all that practising?.
Generally, if any of the muses ditch you (see what they're doing there?), your aspirations to produce great works of art are not going to be fulfilled; you'll just be like the rest of us, wannabe thises and wannabe thatses.
One question (aside): Why is it that when something good happens, it's because of team work, and when something bad happens, it's because of a proverbial bad apple, an individual?
Is it right to claim a handful of artists and intellectuals as a collective human achievement while singling out the Jeffrey Dahmers, Ted Bundies and Hitlers as outliers, anomalies?
It doesn't add up, oui?
I wonder if the Voyager Golden Record contains information on psychopaths, wars, and other atrocious acts humans have commited since the dawn of "civilization"? Reminds me of the Mantis Orchid! :fear:
Women + men. A role model for the former, an object of desire for the latter.
Which is just so........human, isn't it.
Atwill suggests that your imagery of the 'Mary's' was what the real authors of the gospels intended, whilst hiding the truth behind the stories in the gospels, that they were in fact satirical parodies of the real rebel Jewish leaders who fought so continuously against Rome. He suggests all the characters in the new testament are satirical inventions, including JC.
Human, si!
Quoting Noble Dust
Well, I think theistic women do want to see themselves fully represented right beside god, behind every great god there has to be a great goddess. I am sure this was a missed line in:
Yeah but most of us now advocate for much more civilised behavior than was required under the Darwinian laws of the jungle. In fact, more and more people insist on it.
I'll take your word for it.
Please do, but I don't think I am, as Barry Manilow starts off with 'One voice singing in the darkness.'
I think the number of global voices are growing and growing, all demanding a better life for all and better stewardship of our planet. Join our voices Agent Smith. The bigger the throng the better, perhaps we can finally install adequate global checks and balances to prevent nefarious ba****** from ever gaining significant power anywhere on our planet.
The idea of all the characters in the Bible being satirical is interesting. That is because so many of the themes such as the Virgin birth and resurrection seem to related to themes of mythology. Also the Gospels were written such a long time after Jesus, so it is hard to know about whoever or whatever the life of Jesus was constructed upon. I am inclined to think that there must have been some aspects of real life, probably related to the way it was taught as literal to me in childhood. However, when the Gnostic Gospels are seen as well as the ones in the Bible it becomes more open to question.
Well, I don't want to add to the burden of your reading list Jack, :smile: but I would highly recommend Joe Atwill's 'Caesars Messiah'. I found it fascinating and compelling but after listening to its main dissenters, especially atheist academics such as Dr Richard Carrier, I have currently settled at around the 66.7% mark, as a measure of how convinced I am that Joe Atwill is correct on the majority of his findings.
It sounds worth reading and I may try and get hold of it. I am simply trying to read some of the ones queuing up in piles in my room. If I get too many more at present I will be in danger of becoming buried alive amidst books. That would be a philosophy tale in itself.
:smile: Aint it the truth!
Leonardo da Vinci! He was a painter par excellence and also dabbled in science & engineering (Vitruvian man, designed a helo).
As far as I am aware Leonardo da Vinci was far ahead of his time in many aspects of thought. Some of the greater thinkers have gone beyond the scope of rigid divisions. This applies to Freud and Jung, who I find extremely interesting, but I am sure it applies to many others too. I am inclined to view the in between areas and edges, drawing upon models of science and the metaphors and imagery of the art offer scope for creative ways of seeing. They are like the wasteland of philosophy, the deserts of discovery where freedom and independence of thought may be found.
In what sense do you consider these men "greater thinkers"? IMHO as a lifelong reader of cognitive neuroscience (& cognitive psychology), both Freud & Jung had produced provocative, even insightful, works of pseudoscience and quasi-mystical mythopoetics (mostly derived from, or influenced by, German idealists & vitalism). :chin:
I would not deny that both Freud and Jung had faults in their philosophy. Freud may have overplayed sexuality, with the issue of the Oedipus complex being open to question. Similarly, Jung's writings may display racism, especially in his ideas about Jews, in the context of a critical time in Nazi Germany. Also, the idea of the collective unconscious is open to question.
Nevertheless, I would argue that both Freud developed such an important contribution relevant to both psychology and philosophy. Freud's critique of religion in 'Totem and Taboo' contributed to critical analysis of religion. Also, his model of the human psyche was extremely important, leading on to the development of thinkers such as Melanie Klein and Donald Winnicott. Jung's ideas on the shadow as the repressed side of human nature was also extremely important.
Of course, I would not deny that they were influenced by German idealism and vitalism. What I think was particularly great though, beyond the specific ideas which they developed was the scope of their thinking, as evident in the vast amount which they wrote, drawing from many diverse sources. In this sense; they were system builders in the tradition of philosophers of the past. It is probable that if they were writing in the twentieth first century they would be open to greater criticism, and they may not have risen to importance, amidst the tendency towards scientific materialism.
.
How to draw:
Step 1: Draw the form/structure (circles, straight lines i.e. math/science?)
Step 2: Flesh it out (the imperfections, too Platonic?)
Science can only address the world as physicality. Since God is not asserted to be a physical entity, science would have nothing to say about it.
That's deeeeep, dude! Deeeeeep! :up:
Not in the mood for jerks. Debate or keep quiet.
Sorry. Carry on.
Goodbye.
Stay safe :mask:
I read his biography & life's work on Wikipedia. He comes across as a genuine person - did extensive research on subjects that interested him, formulated his own theories based on that, and so on - whose mission it was to gain insight into the human mind. Like his estranged mentor, Freud, his focus seems to have been the unconscious (that part of the psyche that exists below the threshold of awareness, I like to call it the autopilot - reminds me of God somehow, hidden, behind a veil we can't hope to penetrate, not anytime soon that is). Leibniz was of the opinion that minds were little gods). Just speculating but my hunch is that an aspect of the unconscious is probably like a computer compiler/interpreter that translates high level language code (thoughts) into machine language (action potentials or bioelectric currents) and back.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
:lol:
How did the asserter’s determine that God is not a physical entity? Did they perform scientific tests?
Gods are, in my humble and respectful opinion, as physical as Earthly life. They did create life in their image, oui?
Quoting Agent Smith
Okay. How does science examine the existence of God. You're much smarter than me. Explain.
What definition of God makes it a physical entity?
I haven't asserted that God is a physical entity. I asked how anyone could determine that God is not a physical entity.
You don't believe God is a physical entity. Nor do I. Why would we debate something neither of us believe?
I'm asking how anyone (myself included) could know whether or not God is a physical entity. I honestly don't know. If I did know, or were somehow persuaded to think one way or the other, I would not ask.
By definition.
God
Nope. What dictionary did you use?
Where did those definitions say God is a physical entity?
Nowhere. It also does not define God as a non-physical entity.
So, "spirit" to you means physical?
I'm afraid that I am also ignorant about the nature of spirits as well. Please enlighten me.
You have no idea what people mean by spirit?
Consulting my trusty dictionary again, I see that spirit is defined as: the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
Now we're getting somewhere!
God is soul without a body, like a dead person.
God is often described as omnipotent. By that definition it can manifest physically anytime it wills it.
If it can't do that then it is not omnipotent so it would fail one of the omni definitions of god
Ok. How would a physicist investigate those physical properties?
Well as soon as someone or something performs an act which is not possible under the known laws of physics. We can call in the physicists to confirm that this physical manifestation may be god and not just a weird quantum fluctuation that used quantum tunneling to pass through a physical barrier.
You homed in on a very important point. I congratulated you on it. You went berserk! Nec caput nec pedes.
Thanks! I believe I have that book in my e-book library. Will read it.
I don't feel how my kidneys produce urine, but I do bleed the lizard at regular intervals. The same goes for my other organs, but the one that has the spotlight on it is the brain - it seems impossible to feel the action potentials that light up our brains like a Christmas tree, and yet we're able to think. I can't wrap my head around that. It blows my mind.
Thus, our bodies are like the contraptions/machines we use everyday of our lives, from your humble toaster to an advanced F-35, we can use it without having to know how it actually works. Like how birds fly by instinct alone, with zero knowledge of aeronautics.
What's the point of a person's aeuronautics enginering degree when a 15 year old can fly like an ace whild s/he can't even pilot a model airplane? What's the value of knowledge?
Why is it like that? I mean are we machines used by...?
:clap: Gott ist tot (Friedrich Nietzsche)
"What's the value of" hygiene or fitness (or any adaptive practice)?
Quoting Agent Smith
We are macro machines made up of trillions of micro machines "who" make and use macro machines which in various feedback modes re-make us. Or so it seems.
They're keys to survival, reducible to 3 primary goals:
1. Finding food
2. Fleeing predators
3. F**cking suitable mates
3Fs :chin: I'm bad at all three. I'm a genetic dead end! :grin: and bear it!
I did not go berserk. Being rational is normal.
[quote= Nietzsche]God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?[/quote]
Gotta love the Nietch.
For an antidote to Kahneman’s reductionism I recommend anything by enactivist embodied cognitive
theorists.
Not all, but some enactivists, those who integrate phenomenology into their work , argue that there are important philosophical gaps between Kahneman’s metaphysical assumptions and theirs.They also believe this about Dennett, Searle , Clark and free energy principle-based neuroscience models. I would just argue that Kahneman’s approach, like these others, is a sophisticated causal model ( reciprocal, dynamical causality), not as far removed for behaviorism as many would like to believe.
I think that religion, science and art can be fruitfully connected by the context of interpretation, or we can say hermeneutics. You can have a look at Gadamer about this. Religion can be considered an interpretation of existence in reference to supernatural beings. Art is the expression of subjective interpretation of a lot of things. Science tries to build interpretations as well, but with an effort to keep bound to what has evidence. In this context science can help, or be in a dialogue, with artistic and religious interpretations by suggesting methodologies of consistency.
Religion, so I think in all intellectual honesty and faithfull commitment, is more than an interpretation of of existence. Religion acknowledges the true existence of supernatural beings about whom many stories are in circulation. The weirdest of these stories, in my respectful opinion, is the gods being the members of an alien, technological super advanced civilization, who created us as simulations in a computer or maybe even in reality...
The importance of hermeneutics may be underplayed in philosophy, with so much focus on science and empirical validation. The understanding of texts, especially sacred ones, is a starting point for thinking about those who created them and the sources they incorporated. It is about coming from a different angle, with the arts drawing on creative imagination. If people try to interpret the texts in a concrete way as if they are scientific accounts it can lead to so much confusion. In this way, both the arts and science are complementary aspects of thinking about understanding reality, including symbolic versus evidence based accounts. Some may value science in preference to the arts and it may be important to see how the two approaches work so differently. When science is seen as all important it can lead to people losing touch with the mythical aspects of thought and even scientific models may have mythical aspects too.
I would like to point out that, actually, ignoring the mythical aspects of the text, is not really respectful of science: in order to be fully scientific, it should be obvious to consider the historical and cultural context of the texts: this is normal practice in the science of history, archaelogy. So, I think that people who ignore the myths, the symbols, the literary value of religious ancient texts, in favor of what they call “science”, actually behave against science.
:ok:
As for art, Yeshua was not known for painting or sculpture, but I remain convinced enough that he was a good actor and was a wordsmith in his own right. As a subject of art, however, he had no equal, at least not in medieval Europe.