Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dclements]

If there is something like a god which created all of reality...

It seems hilariously absurd to try to evaluate and judge the actions of an intelligence of such unimaginable scale.

Whether we call reality "God" or "Nature" our situation is the same in either case, so the debate between believers and secularists is pointless. In either case we face the challenge of making peace with something immeasurably larger than us and far beyond our control.

Theists are being logical in finding a method for falling in love with reality, a process made easier by personalizing reality in a character called God.

As example...

The mods on this forum are a kind of god, they rule over every word we write. Sometimes the mods are wise, and sometimes they are foolish. What as a poster can I do about any of this? Nothing! Thus, it's not logical for me to pound my fist on the desk. It would be logical for me to make peace with the fact that I am not in control of my own destiny on this forum. It would be even more logical for me to love the mods, even as they delete my best posts, because love then becomes my own state of mind.

Nature/God is a gloriously beautiful giver of life, and a ruthless killer of the innocent. And there's nothing we can do about it.

What we can do is shape our relationship with this situation in to a form which gives us as much peace as possible. That would be logical. And it really doesn't matter a bit whether we call the situation "God" or "Nature".

Perhaps if one is in a situation where one is more or less content with their situation one could be happy with the existing status quo or however things are, but if you are one of the people that are disenfranchised or always getting the short end of the stick one may not be able to have such a laid back way in dealing with the situation.

While someone may wish to be another Job and just take whatever is thrown at them if that person is put under enough stress, headaches, or whatever, there is a good chance that they will want to climb a water tower and take people out or lash out by some other means. Like a piece of steel put under enough stress over time, any human mind will snap.

[Ozymandias]

So then, what use is "happiness" in life anyway? I think what matters is what our lives mean, on a philosophical and spiritual level.

If you are a refugee caring for your starving dying children who were the products of rape in a refugee camp, then I think a little happiness would be more than welcome. This isn't a matter of "first world problems" but the kind of suffering that destroys.

I think that a logical god would be willing to give us pain, even in the extreme, in order to attribute significance to our lives.

I do not place any value in the "significance" of our lives. Significant to whom? Other post apes, most of whom wouldn't know their backside from their elbow. Any deity that placed high focus on idiot humanity is a small-minded deity indeed, a long way from the deity of the universe, just a demigod.

All lives are equally significant or insignificant IMO, with death the "great leveller". Doing "important" or "significant" things simply involves being connected and valued in post-ape society. We have long assumed that what's good for post-ape society is objective good, because it's us.

"All lives are equally significant or insignificant?"
Would I then be misinterpreting you to say that the life of your refugee is as significant as mine? Said refugee's suffering is as significant as my non-suffering? I just feel as though you're being inconsistent in how/ why you value life.

I don't remember if I've brought up the video game metaphor in this forum- imagine life is to the universe as a video game is to my life. Not sure if everyone here is totally familiar with the gaming world, but in a first person shooter, one occupies many lives during the course of the game. You spawn in, score some points, get shot and die, respawn, repeat. If you respawn and then die again without getting any points, you don't think much about it because that life is just part of the game. The pain your character felt within that game encompassed his life, sure, but in the greater scheme of your existence, inside and outside of the video game, that life was still integral. The sufferings felt in that life aren't particularly moving, because the pain that character felt was limited to the game- it isn't felt in your greater reality as you play the game.

I understand my theory here is morbid and unfair, and it may appear I'm just a naive 1st- worlder saying it's okay that others suffer. That's obviously not true, it makes me very sad to see people suffer and whenever I can try to change that I do. This is armchair philosophy, not necessarily an applied worldview. I'm just trying to come up with a rational answer to why deity would allow us to suffer, and the premise "our bodily suffering is temporal and non-impactful" answers that question sufficiently, as far as I can see.

Thus, don't worry about dying, because you don't actually exist as a separate thing to begin with.

Since we are not separate could forum members please deposit all of your money into my bank account? Don't worry about it - we are all one.

Thank you. I promise to enjoy it and, since we are not separate, you will also enjoy it!

I don't think you're giving enough heed to Ormond's point here. A bank account is still part of the illusion of separateness, according to Ormond. Making the claim that we're all abstractly the same thing doesn't mean we should give you our money, and I'm not sure what point your comedic misinterpretation makes, however clever the joke may be.

[Felix]

The bank metaphor will work if you revise it like so: there is a single Divine eternal bank of Consciousness/Being, and each of us has an account at this bank, but most of us are unaware of its existence, because it has no outer edifice, the knowledge of it and its wealth is buried deep within your consciousness.

[Ozymandias]

The bank metaphor will work if you revise it like so: there is a single Divine eternal bank of Consciousness/Being, and each of us has an account at this bank, but most of us are unaware of its existence, because it has no outer edifice, the knowledge of it and its wealth is buried deep within your consciousness.

I like that- my question is: since it is clear to us that the amount of humans on the planet, the amount of "active accounts" if you will, is growing, does that mean that a consciousness can be dormant? Or does that consciousness go somewhere? A form of purgatory, perhaps? Or are we to take this as suggestion of planetary intelligent life somewhere else in the universe, which also has accounts in the bank and has been steadily declining in inverse proportion to our steady growth?

[Sy Borg]

"All lives are equally significant or insignificant?"

Would I then be misinterpreting you to say that the life of your refugee is as significant as mine? Said refugee's suffering is as significant as my non-suffering? I just feel as though you're being inconsistent in how/ why you value life.

Yes. Not only a refugee's life but also Adolph Hitler's, Mahatma Gandhi's, Mother Teresa's and Donald Trump's lives. They are all just lives lived on way or another. Our reality requires both growth and entropy so it only matters to us who promoted growth and who created chaos. Reality doesn't care - it needed all of it.

If we are to adjudicate the performance in life of us post-apes who so often struggle for emotional control, then one should also allow for adjudication of which cockroaches are of most value in a population. Which of them best fulfilled their cockroachly potentials and which wasted their potentials with bad decision? Which are the best of the chimps, dolphins, elephants? Who are the greats, the evil and the also rans of each species?

Like any other animal, all we humans can do is the best we can manage within the bounds of our limitations, which are profound even with today's technological empowerment.

I don't remember if I've brought up the video game metaphor in this forum- imagine life is to the universe as a video game is to my life. Not sure if everyone here is totally familiar with the gaming world, but in a first person shooter, one occupies many lives during the course of the game. You spawn in, score some points, get shot and die, respawn, repeat. If you respawn and then die again without getting any points, you don't think much about it because that life is just part of the game. The pain your character felt within that game encompassed his life, sure, but in the greater scheme of your existence, inside and outside of the video game, that life was still integral. The sufferings felt in that life aren't particularly moving, because the pain that character felt was limited to the game- it isn't felt in your greater reality as you play the game.

While I am not a gamer, I am a mad Westworld fan so I somewhat understand :) As far as I'm concerned, if there's no memory then past lives don't matter. They might as well be someone else entirely.

I understand my theory here is morbid and unfair, and it may appear I'm just a naive 1st- worlder saying it's okay that others suffer. That's obviously not true, it makes me very sad to see people suffer and whenever I can try to change that I do. This is armchair philosophy, not necessarily an applied worldview. I'm just trying to come up with a rational answer to why deity would allow us to suffer, and the premise "our bodily suffering is temporal and non-impactful" answers that question sufficiently, as far as I can see.

Sure, we're all trying to make sense of it. Consider the many millions of parents who lose one or more children - probably the worst possible pain. Add the losses of other intelligent and emotional mammal mothers - elephants, dolphins, chimps and bonobos - and the toll of suffering through history is beyond comprehension. These same tragedies and agonies played out over and again in different ways over millions of years. It all seems over the top.

Thus, don't worry about dying, because you don't actually exist as a separate thing to begin with.

Since we are not separate could forum members please deposit all of your money into my bank account? Don't worry about it - we are all one.

Thank you. I promise to enjoy it and, since we are not separate, you will also enjoy it!

I don't think you're giving enough heed to Ormond's point here. A bank account is still part of the illusion of separateness, according to Ormond. Making the claim that we're all abstractly the same thing doesn't mean we should give you our money, and I'm not sure what point your comedic misinterpretation makes, however clever the joke may be.

If we are not separate then why shouldn't Orm share his wealth with me? I suggest that separation is no illusion. On some levels we truly are separate, even if we are together as part of larger systems.

[Whitedragon]

Hi Greta, would it be fair to say the universe is the closest thing to the Lord’s age we can find? You wish for a universe where there is no suffering and do not believe in the Lord. If the universe has been around and is like some authority over what should be, why has the universe not gotten it right? If the universe could create thinking living breathing creatures, why did it not also eliminate pain?

I don't know exactly what Greta is thinking, but IMHO it is foolish to blame the universe (if there is no 'God') of duhkha/'nature 'evil'/etc. because the universe just exist as it is just as we exist as we are. As I have said before, it isn't a given that there is a 'good' or 'evil' (or really any rhyme or reason to why thing are the way they are) and our tendency to think of things in terms of 'good'/'evil', as well as make up gods and 'God', is merely for our own reasons and in order for our narrative to make any sense; 'We do what we do, because that is the way we do it".

In reality what we perceive is 'good' is really just something that seems useful for us and that which is 'evil' is something that is 'evil' is something that threatens it; however since 'good'/'evil' are two sides of the same coin how we perceive them can easily switch when circumstances change. Or as Friar Lawrence put it "Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied,
and vice sometimes by action dignified".

Has science ever failed you, Greta, or has our will to control science and the cosmos failed us? A curious question; will there be any rap music or metal music in your perfect world; what about opera, or Shakespeare? Please allow one quote.

“Eyes, look your last. Arms, take your last embrace. And, lips, O you the doors of breath, seal with righteous kiss A dateless bargain to engrossing death.” Romeo and Juliet

It seems with the eliminating of all pain and suffering, we might lose most of our poetry and literature; music and drama. It seems science has failed us as much as the Lord has “failed” us; yet both the Lord and science existed for longer than the lives here on earth combined. So why is it okay if science “fails” us, but not the Lord? Perhaps the universe needs a voice here as well, because we pretend we know better than it does as well.

Science is merely a tool to allow us to better understand the universe and for us to use such understanding to try and make our lives better. It really isn't meant to be a religion/narrative/ideology/ or system of beliefs, and it is only the ideologies/ religions/narratives/etc that try to pretend they are based on science that fail. As Hume put it "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'". so basically there is no easy way to make the facts (that we derived from science) tell us what we 'ought' to do or what our opinions should be. The 'Enlightenment' and 'Modernism' failed in some (or many) ways but since they greatly underestimated many of the problems of the human condition but since the idea that they really could improve things was more of a sales pitch then an honest attempt at fixing things, it really can as no great surprise either time. In reality each time a new ideology or narrative is invented in the Western world it is really about maintaining the status quo while making the disenfranchised think that things might get better so they are actually designed to eventually fail from the beginning.

Also if duhkha/'nature 'evil' is part of the same coin as I said, then they are a fundamental aspect of our existence; or at least an aspect of the universe we live in. So more or less fretting over the problem of what might happen if we get rid of duhkha/'nature 'evil' is kind of silly because any problem that can exist happens because of it is part of duhkha/'nature 'evil'. Or in other words, as far as we are concern problems and duhkha/'nature 'evil' are one and the same.

Essentially, you are right about what you say of good and bad. It is important for us to realize that truth, since it explains good and bad when people viewed it as a redundant or abstract notion. In fact, it is vital we understand the true meaning, so we might also understand the true intent of good and bad.

If we change those two sides of the same coin, as we need to, it reveals something of our nature. There is a strong measure of selfishness when we sometimes change it, since we change it so often for our own benefit. It reveals a selfish nature, because what is good for us can be where another has to pay the price for it.

Science is a tool, indeed, employed by humans, manipulating and studying the universe. We create many of our problems, ethically and scientifically; now, a question, why are bloggers prevaricating with their answers when asked about the paradise story? It is as if though they do not want that in the discussion. Greta speaks of a perfect world where all is immortal and since we are arguing within a measure of Biblical parameters, they still do not make room for it. Clearly, no pain, stress or science was necessary in the Garden of Eden.

Why can Greta wish for immortality and a perfect world, but at the same time deny or refuse to discuss the Genesis story? It only grants the wish she has been putting out here on the forum. (No offense Greta, just asking). In the end, it boils down to the fact that immortality and a perfect world is useless if the creatures living in it are not.

[Sy Borg]

Why can Greta wish for immortality and a perfect world, but at the same time deny or refuse to discuss the Genesis story? It only grants the wish she has been putting out here on the forum. (No offense Greta, just asking). In the end, it boils down to the fact that immortality and a perfect world is useless if the creatures living in it are not.

Because wishes and truth claims are different :))

I have long believed that Genesis's creation myth was a creative metaphorical way of describing evolution. The Garden of Eden I relate to less, suggesting a fall from grace, whereas my impression is that humanity was always a very long way from grace, especially in our wild past. It seems to me that the best chance for "heaven" is the far future (and most likely life forms elsewhere). Not that it does us stumbling hominids much good - unless reincarnation is real, in which case, we will eventually benefit from the gains stemming from long term struggle.

[Whitedragon]

Why can Greta wish for immortality and a perfect world, but at the same time deny or refuse to discuss the Genesis story? It only grants the wish she has been putting out here on the forum. (No offense Greta, just asking). In the end, it boils down to the fact that immortality and a perfect world is useless if the creatures living in it are not.

Because wishes and truth claims are different )

I have long believed that Genesis's creation myth was a creative metaphorical way of describing evolution. The Garden of Eden I relate to less, suggesting a fall from grace, whereas my impression is that humanity was always a very long way from grace, especially in our wild past. It seems to me that the best chance for "heaven" is the far future (and most likely life forms elsewhere). Not that it does us stumbling hominids much good - unless reincarnation is real, in which case, we will eventually benefit from the gains stemming from long term struggle.

Okay, Greta, let us work together on your theory of a perfect world. It is preferable to go with another’s idea it seems more productive. Please tell us more about this state of immortality. Let us keep an open mind and expand on it; we can get back to Genesis later.

[Ormond]

Angry? Who would I be angry at? The hero of an Iron Age mythological tome? Not much point in that.

Sorry Greta, but this is the classic atheist dodge. First they post 17,000 angry posts about the Judeo-Christian God, and then they try to adopt the "above it all couldn't care less" stance. You're more interested in the Judeo-Christian God than most Christians, and it's all in print here for anybody to see for themselves.

Please keep in mind that a purely scientific secular conception of nature (no god of any kind) has pretty much the same properties as the Judeo-Christian God. Beautiful giver of life, ruthless killer of the innocent etc. So leaping from the Judeo-Christian God to a purely secular view of reality doesn't really accomplish much. We're still here in this place, and whatever it's source, it's still a highly contradictory environment rampant with unfairness, violence, suffering etc.

The theists, the better ones anyway, have found a way to fall in love with this situation where we find ourselves and that's a highly rational act, even if it should turn out to depend on a significant amount of fantasy. Atheist ideologues can offer human beings nothing that comes even close in relieving human psychological suffering, mostly only the kind of snotty sarcasm fantasy superiority derision which characterizes many (but not all) of your posts on these topics.

It's clear that religion is not a useful path for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. But simply stating that over and over and over again does nothing to address the fundamental human condition in a constructive manner.

Theism has addressed that situation in a manner that has worked for billions of people over thousands of years, in every corner of the world. When your worldview can do the same, please post again and let us know how.

[Dclements]

Essentially, you are right about what you say of good and bad. It is important for us to realize that truth, since it explains good and bad when people viewed it as a redundant or abstract notion. In fact, it is vital we understand the true meaning, so we might also understand the true intent of good and bad.

I think I more or less agree with most of what you are saying here, but one thing I want to stress (which I have said before) is that I don't believe in 'truth' or 'truths'; I only believe in data or facts. We talk about 'truths' we we say someone 'ought' to do this or that, where as facts/data are simple pieces of information that doesn't really tell us what to do. Think of it this way, it is a 'fact' that a car runs on gas but it isn't a truth that one 'ought' to put gas in a car.

Whenever we think about what we 'ought' to do, we can use 'facts' to help guide our actions but ultimately what actions we do requires us to make a judgement call and however the facts guided our actions, they do not abstain us from the negative consequences of such actions. Or in other words, whatever we choose is still based in a large part by our opinions and biases and not by any real 'truths' and because we are fallible our 'truths' are too fallible to be thought of as 'truths'. Of course when I say all this, it is a given that my narrative and/or thoughts work under this paradigm and I have to be mindful that others my either not agree and/or understand what I'm talking about. Also it might also might be a little 'preachy' of me to expect others to be willing to think as I do; but if someone is trying to talk/debate with me I think it is acceptable for me to explain such things to them.

But at any rate I think you are more or less on the right track.

If we change those two sides of the same coin, as we need to, it reveals something of our nature. There is a strong measure of selfishness when we sometimes change it, since we change it so often for our own benefit. It reveals a selfish nature, because what is good for us can be where another has to pay the price for it.

I think what you are talking about might be something similar to what I have heard called the 'technological' point of view where many people can be very narcissistic and think of the world (and other people) around them as existing to serve only their wants and needs and in total disregard to whatever other existence or meaning it might have. I have even heard this might be influenced by the whole 'I think therefore I am', where the 'I' being the only certain thing to exist. If you agree that this is a problem I suggest reading 'Heidegger For Beginners' (which I read), or perhaps another book about Heidegger.

However at any rate a large amount of the problems caused by human stems from the fact that we are not much more than stupid little apes and whatever wisdom (or tools) our philosophy/science and technology/religion/etc. can give us, they can only help us so much against the nearly infinite amount of problems we face. In the end life is very open ended and there is not much we can do to change that. To be honest I'm actually surprised that we have done so well so far although the price in blood, sweat, and tears hasn't been that trivial by any means.

Science is a tool, indeed, employed by humans, manipulating and studying the universe. We create many of our problems, ethically and scientifically; now, a question, why are bloggers prevaricating with their answers when asked about the paradise story? It is as if though they do not want that in the discussion. Greta speaks of a perfect world where all is immortal and since we are arguing within a measure of Biblical parameters, they still do not make room for it. Clearly, no pain, stress or science was necessary in the Garden of Eden.

But was there an actual 'Garden of Eden' with no pain, stress or science in it? As I mentioned before 'duhkha' is an ever present aspect of this world and to talk about a paradise (whether made by man or God) is hard to fathom. If one such as myself accepts the four noble truths of Buddhism (or at least in my own way accept it), the existence of 'duhkha' is an ever present aspect of this existence (and any like it), so even a 'Garden of Eden' that is described in the bible either has to have 'duhkha' in it or has to be fundamentally different than any kind of existence we know of. To be honest I find it hard to image how God could have expected for Adam and Eve to resist the devil (who is supposedly a God-like being himself) when he tricked them to eat the apple, if Adam and Eve where completely naive before eating from the tree of knowledge. Also if God is all knowing then it is all but a given that we wanted the devil to tempt them, for them to eat the apple and for himself to have to punish them so in the end their (and our) fall from grace is completely of God's own making; that is if he is all knowing and powerful.

IMHO the story of the 'Garden of Eden' may be similar to the problems man faced as he became more sentient and started thinking more for himself. This is sort of talked about in a book called 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' where man had to rely on some part of his mind that he thought of as 'chief' or 'god' when he thought of anything other than normal day to day activity. I want to call this 'chief/god' something like our 'superegos' but I think others have tried to correct me in the past when I did. At any rate, becoming more sentient and no longer having a 'chief/god' to tell us what to do may have been the bibles parable of telling us what happened; for Christianity (and perhaps some other Abrahamic religions) to say our fall from grace is our own doing may be inaccurate. None of us may be really innocent ,since our all of lives are at the expense of other animals, but to blame our ability to be more sentient on our sin is kind of cruel. And it could make us more biased at acquiring more knowledge or trying to further eat from the apple of knowledge(or immortality) in the future.

Why can Greta wish for immortality and a perfect world, but at the same time deny or refuse to discuss the Genesis story? It only grants the wish she has been putting out here on the forum. (No offense Greta, just asking). In the end, it boils down to the fact that immortality and a perfect world is useless if the creatures living in it are not.

What is Greta avoiding? (I'll look over the posts but don't have much time to review them in detail right now)

Again IMHO, if we are not more than stupid little apes with only a little help with the tools (that I already mentioned) that we have then what would the 'evil' be in the hopes of having more tools to work with? I will agree that we stand to fall further and further from grace, or sort of as as R. Buckminster Fuller put it "Those who play with the devil's toys will be brought by degrees to wield his sword" but with no 'God' to intervene on our behalf the only other choice other than acquiring more leverage is to eventual have to face oblivion. I think this passage by Nietzsche "Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss; What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under" sums it up pretty well. In the end we have to move on from being the simple little apes that we are, even if it will likely be unpleasant to do so.

[Whitedragon]

Essentially, you are right about what you say of good and bad. It is important for us to realize that truth, since it explains good and bad when people viewed it as a redundant or abstract notion. In fact, it is vital we understand the true meaning, so we might also understand the true intent of good and bad.

I think I more or less agree with most of what you are saying here, but one thing I want to stress (which I have said before) is that I don't believe in 'truth' or 'truths'; I only believe in data or facts. We talk about 'truths' we we say someone 'ought' to do this or that, where as facts/data are simple pieces of information that doesn't really tell us what to do. Think of it this way, it is a 'fact' that a car runs on gas but it isn't a truth that one 'ought' to put gas in a car.

Whenever we think about what we 'ought' to do, we can use 'facts' to help guide our actions but ultimately what actions we do requires us to make a judgement call and however the facts guided our actions, they do not abstain us from the negative consequences of such actions. Or in other words, whatever we choose is still based in a large part by our opinions and biases and not by any real 'truths' and because we are fallible our 'truths' are too fallible to be thought of as 'truths'. Of course when I say all this, it is a given that my narrative and/or thoughts work under this paradigm and I have to be mindful that others my either not agree and/or understand what I'm talking about. Also it might also might be a little 'preachy' of me to expect others to be willing to think as I do; but if someone is trying to talk/debate with me I think it is acceptable for me to explain such things to them.

But at any rate I think you are more or less on the right track.

If we change those two sides of the same coin, as we need to, it reveals something of our nature. There is a strong measure of selfishness when we sometimes change it, since we change it so often for our own benefit. It reveals a selfish nature, because what is good for us can be where another has to pay the price for it.

I think what you are talking about might be something similar to what I have heard called the 'technological' point of view where many people can be very narcissistic and think of the world (and other people) around them as existing to serve only their wants and needs and in total disregard to whatever other existence or meaning it might have. I have even heard this might be influenced by the whole 'I think therefore I am', where the 'I' being the only certain thing to exist. If you agree that this is a problem I suggest reading 'Heidegger For Beginners' (which I read), or perhaps another book about Heidegger.

However at any rate a large amount of the problems caused by human stems from the fact that we are not much more than stupid little apes and whatever wisdom (or tools) our philosophy/science and technology/religion/etc. can give us, they can only help us so much against the nearly infinite amount of problems we face. In the end life is very open ended and there is not much we can do to change that. To be honest I'm actually surprised that we have done so well so far although the price in blood, sweat, and tears hasn't been that trivial by any means.

Science is a tool, indeed, employed by humans, manipulating and studying the universe. We create many of our problems, ethically and scientifically; now, a question, why are bloggers prevaricating with their answers when asked about the paradise story? It is as if though they do not want that in the discussion. Greta speaks of a perfect world where all is immortal and since we are arguing within a measure of Biblical parameters, they still do not make room for it. Clearly, no pain, stress or science was necessary in the Garden of Eden.

But was there an actual 'Garden of Eden' with no pain, stress or science in it? As I mentioned before 'duhkha' is an ever present aspect of this world and to talk about a paradise (whether made by man or God) is hard to fathom. If one such as myself accepts the four noble truths of Buddhism (or at least in my own way accept it), the existence of 'duhkha' is an ever present aspect of this existence (and any like it), so even a 'Garden of Eden' that is described in the bible either has to have 'duhkha' in it or has to be fundamentally different than any kind of existence we know of. To be honest I find it hard to image how God could have expected for Adam and Eve to resist the devil (who is supposedly a God-like being himself) when he tricked them to eat the apple, if Adam and Eve where completely naive before eating from the tree of knowledge. Also if God is all knowing then it is all but a given that we wanted the devil to tempt them, for them to eat the apple and for himself to have to punish them so in the end their (and our) fall from grace is completely of God's own making; that is if he is all knowing and powerful.

IMHO the story of the 'Garden of Eden' may be similar to the problems man faced as he became more sentient and started thinking more for himself. This is sort of talked about in a book called 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' where man had to rely on some part of his mind that he thought of as 'chief' or 'god' when he thought of anything other than normal day to day activity. I want to call this 'chief/god' something like our 'superegos' but I think others have tried to correct me in the past when I did. At any rate, becoming more sentient and no longer having a 'chief/god' to tell us what to do may have been the bibles parable of telling us what happened; for Christianity (and perhaps some other Abrahamic religions) to say our fall from grace is our own doing may be inaccurate. None of us may be really innocent ,since our all of lives are at the expense of other animals, but to blame our ability to be more sentient on our sin is kind of cruel. And it could make us more biased at acquiring more knowledge or trying to further eat from the apple of knowledge(or immortality) in the future.

Why can Greta wish for immortality and a perfect world, but at the same time deny or refuse to discuss the Genesis story? It only grants the wish she has been putting out here on the forum. (No offense Greta, just asking). In the end, it boils down to the fact that immortality and a perfect world is useless if the creatures living in it are not.

What is Greta avoiding? (I'll look over the posts but don't have much time to review them in detail right now)

Again IMHO, if we are not more than stupid little apes with only a little help with the tools (that I already mentioned) that we have then what would the 'evil' be in the hopes of having more tools to work with? I will agree that we stand to fall further and further from grace, or sort of as as R. Buckminster Fuller put it "Those who play with the devil's toys will be brought by degrees to wield his sword" but with no 'God' to intervene on our behalf the only other choice other than acquiring more leverage is to eventual have to face oblivion. I think this passage by Nietzsche "Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss; What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under" sums it up pretty well. In the end we have to move on from being the simple little apes that we are, even if it will likely be unpleasant to do so.

Perhaps the Genesis story is trying to tell us of something long forgotten in history. Our lack of comprehension we can only thank the mystics who placed it in those models. Like all mystic narratives, it tries to communicate something, which often is clear enough to get an impression. It truly is illogical that the Lord would place us in a world full of pain.

You are right in saying that he had to know that we would disobey him. However, would it not be stranger if he punished us for something we never did? We already spoke about a world of opposites and how evil necessarily comes into being as soon as goodness does. Devil, when you spell it backwards, gives you the word “lived.” Perhaps the Genesis story is more to explain the nature of man to choose evil.

How we live our life often determines our destination. Perhaps there was a time when things were simpler, perhaps even perfect. We have a shrouded history and we should ask; how much can history actually provide us? If the universe was in a different state at some point, following different scientific rules, how can we trace back to that history?

[Dclements]

Sorry Greta, but this is the classic atheist dodge. First they post 17,000 angry posts about the Judeo-Christian God, and then they try to adopt the "above it all couldn't care less" stance. You're more interested in the Judeo-Christian God than most Christians, and it's all in print here for anybody to see for themselves.

What is really wrong if they try to vent some of their their misgivings about Christianity or other frustrations on this or other forums? I believe if you are part of the disenfranchised then I think it is within your right to speak out about whatever is bothering you; even if it isn't entirely constructive all the time.

Some atheist can act like they are 'above it all' or don't really care (although if they really didn't care it is likely that they wouldn't bother to post), but it might be better that they act like they don't care and post then actually no care at all and not say anything, wouldn't you agree?

Please keep in mind that a purely scientific secular conception of nature (no god of any kind) has pretty much the same properties as the Judeo-Christian God. Beautiful giver of life, ruthless killer of the innocent etc. So leaping from the Judeo-Christian God to a purely secular view of reality doesn't really accomplish much. We're still here in this place, and whatever it's source, it's still a highly contradictory environment rampant with unfairness, violence, suffering etc.

But how do you know? Maybe if more people didn't believe in heaven we would put more effort into prolonging life which in turn could improve the quality of life for many people. Maybe there would be less opposition to stem cell research and some other 'morally questionable' research as well. I'm not saying it is a given that things would be better, but I'm saying it is possible for some thing to be better and it is a given that some things would change. If things really wouldn't chance if we followed a different ideology then why do Christians put so much stress in the values of their own beliefs?

The theists, the better ones anyway, have found a way to fall in love with this situation where we find ourselves and that's a highly rational act, even if it should turn out to depend on a significant amount of fantasy. Atheist ideologues can offer human beings nothing that comes even close in relieving human psychological suffering, mostly only the kind of snotty sarcasm fantasy superiority derision which characterizes many (but not all) of your posts on these topics.

How can you be sure that these theists that find a way to 'love' our current situation can create a better future if changing the future requires us to not be satisfied with our current state of existence and for us to strive for something better? I believe the Indians living in North,Central, and South American found a way to be more content than their European counterparts, however this lifestyle (along with it's lower technology and resources) didn't help them when both cultures encountered each other.

Just trying to find a way to be happy with what you already got, instead of burning out always trying to get what you want may not be successful in the very long run. Cultures that have just a few people that always want something better (but not too many of them) can allow the culture to slowly adapt to new idea,technologies, changes, etc. so in this end some of these atheist (such as Nietzsche) may fill a very important role in our mostly theistic western society.

It's clear that religion is not a useful path for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. But simply stating that over and over and over again does nothing to address the fundamental human condition in a constructive manner.

Theism has addressed that situation in a manner that has worked for billions of people over thousands of years, in every corner of the world. When your worldview can do the same, please post again and let us know how.

But does theism really provide all the solutions for humanity that you say it does? Think of all the resources that theism spends (or wastes) in order to maintain this illusion of 'God'/heaven/life after/etc. A small example of this is a huge church in Spain call (or least I think it is called) the 'Sagrada Família'. While people may willingly donate to their religions, churches, and charities, so much effort in order to keep up something like a giant placebo effect (or 'opiate of the masses') isn't without it's own negative consequences.

Basically there are some that do not feel as you do about Christianity or theism providing the right answers and they are merely attempting to find something else. There has been many, many times in the past that certain theist choose to not following and they broke off and created other sects or schisms and sometimes even went to war with those who continued to in their given doctrine. While I can't name many atheistic ideologies that have gone to such extremes, except maybe communism, I believe ranting and debating on forums until an atheist tires from it (or perhaps eventually dies) doesn't seem that bad of a thing in comparison.

[Fooloso4]

Whitedragon:

… why are bloggers prevaricating with their answers when asked about the paradise story?

I do not have a blog but I have discussed the story extensively on this forum, although I am sure that my reading is quite different than your own. I am also quite sure that my reading is much more faithful to the story itself than your Christianized version.


Ormond:

Please keep in mind that a purely scientific secular conception of nature (no god of any kind) has pretty much the same properties as the Judeo-Christian God.

When natural disasters are ascribed to God as retribution for sin that is to ascribe properties to nature that cannot be found in science.

So leaping from the Judeo-Christian God to a purely secular view of reality doesn't really accomplish much.

It has accomplished a great deal as we can see from the history of the Enlightenment forward. From physics to politics to medicine to philosophy the accomplishments are immense. Without such advances we might still be fighting perpetual holy wars. None of these advances would be possible as long as the Church held absolute authority over all such matters.

We're still here in this place, and whatever it's source, it's still a highly contradictory environment rampant with unfairness, violence, suffering etc.

That is true but it does not mean that we have not made progress.


Atheist ideologues can offer human beings nothing that comes even close in relieving human psychological suffering …


I do not know whether you are using a broad brush to paint all atheists as ideologues or if you are describing ideologues who are atheist as opposed to ideologies who are not. Neither Stoicism or Epicureanism is a form of theism in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term, but both offer solace, but not simply through stories but through disciplined practice. Humanism strives to improve our well-being all human beings through their efforts and build unity rather than sectarian differences.

Theism has addressed that situation in a manner that has worked for billions of people over thousands of years, in every corner of the world. When your worldview can do the same, please post again and let us know how.

The problem is that first theism is not a worldview, it is a common feature of various worldviews, although that feature is more like family resemblances than a single identifiable characteristic. Second, what may have worked for someone else thousands of years ago would not work for us today.


I am not interested in taking sides in the quarrel of theists versus atheists. Both are capable of reason and both are capable of excesses.

[Sy Borg]

(Nested quote removed.)

Because wishes and truth claims are different :))

I have long believed that Genesis's creation myth was a creative metaphorical way of describing evolution. The Garden of Eden I relate to less, suggesting a fall from grace, whereas my impression is that humanity was always a very long way from grace, especially in our wild past. It seems to me that the best chance for "heaven" is the far future (and most likely life forms elsewhere). Not that it does us stumbling hominids much good - unless reincarnation is real, in which case, we will eventually benefit from the gains stemming from long term struggle.

Okay, Greta, let us work together on your theory of a perfect world. It is preferable to go with another’s idea it seems more productive. Please tell us more about this state of immortality. Let us keep an open mind and expand on it; we can get back to Genesis later.

Hi WD

I have had many computer and electrical issues of late. I'd written a lengthy response but, once again, the PC simply switched off.

Whatever, my suggestion was an offhand one because, as stated upfront, I cannot even organise myself let alone a universe. My point is that the "suffering setting" appears to be set very high. We assume that pain = gain because that's all we know and have observed, but it is still only an assumption that sentience and depth can only be born of ferocious sustained suffering of billions of entities over millions of years.

Put it this way, try to think of a worse system of reality that does not immediately kill us or prevent life from forming.

-- Updated 15 Dec 2016, 19:46 to add the following --

Angry? Who would I be angry at? The hero of an Iron Age mythological tome? Not much point in that.

Sorry Greta, but this is the classic atheist dodge. First they post 17,000 angry posts about the Judeo-Christian God, and then they try to adopt the "above it all couldn't care less" stance. You're more interested in the Judeo-Christian God than most Christians, and it's all in print here for anybody to see for themselves.

Please keep in mind that a purely scientific secular conception of nature (no god of any kind) has pretty much the same properties as the Judeo-Christian God. Beautiful giver of life, ruthless killer of the innocent etc. So leaping from the Judeo-Christian God to a purely secular view of reality doesn't really accomplish much. We're still here in this place, and whatever it's source, it's still a highly contradictory environment rampant with unfairness, violence, suffering etc.

The theists, the better ones anyway, have found a way to fall in love with this situation where we find ourselves and that's a highly rational act, even if it should turn out to depend on a significant amount of fantasy. Atheist ideologues can offer human beings nothing that comes even close in relieving human psychological suffering, mostly only the kind of [ad hominem attack] which characterizes many (but not all) of your posts on these topics.

It's clear that religion is not a useful path for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. But simply stating that over and over and over again does nothing to address the fundamental human condition in a constructive manner.

Theism has addressed that situation in a manner that has worked for billions of people over thousands of years, in every corner of the world. When your worldview can do the same, please post again and let us know how.

For many years human sacrifice was thought to serve people well. Slavery, and so forth. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. Not my business, horses for courses, etc. That's of no concern. However, when believers make statements of "fact" based on their efficacious myths and fantasies, then I have the right to point out that the emperor is naked, even if others feel better imagining him to be clothed.

If someone claims the Earth is flat or that demonic possession exists, do they deserve respect on a philosophy forum? No, they deserve to be ignored or quickly dismissed so that topics are not derailed ... Ormond.

[Dclements]

Perhaps the Genesis story is trying to tell us of something long forgotten in history. Our lack of comprehension we can only thank the mystics who placed it in those models. Like all mystic narratives, it tries to communicate something, which often is clear enough to get an impression. It truly is illogical that the Lord would place us in a world full of pain.

Maybe or perhaps maybe not. The Genesis story is one of many stories of creation, and I think I hear it a couple times that some of them say something along the lines that we were created by aliens. But there are many stories, and parables, from many different religions so trying to wean some meaning (that is an actual truth and not something that we just read into it) could be a bit of work and take some time.

I could be wrong, but I believe the Genesis comes from a time when it was accepted that 'God' was more of a tyrant than the nice guy we think of him so him punishing or killing innocent people was just a part of life and people worshiped him often out of fear instead of him being nice to them. to the best of my knowledge that did not change until Jesus came on the scene at which time 'God' became more bi-polar where sometimes he would lash out like the tyrant he was before and at other times try to be more of a Mr.Nice Guy. As far as I know, such contradicting behavior most often doesn't faze believers since they feel it is not their job to question such things.

You are right in saying that he had to know that we would disobey him. However, would it not be stranger if he punished us for something we never did? We already spoke about a world of opposites and how evil necessarily comes into being as soon as goodness does. Devil, when you spell it backwards, gives you the word “lived.” Perhaps the Genesis story is more to explain the nature of man to choose evil.

How can the Genesis story explain how man chooses 'evil' if 'evil' doesn't exist? As I said before what morality, 'good'/'evil', etc. is is a non-trivial problem, and until that is resolved it is not possible for the Genesis story, or any other parable/story to explain 'good' or 'evil in any way really meaningful. I know parables are used to teach children the basics of social morality, but as far as I know they don't teach anything along the lines of absolute morality nor can they work when the parable/story has contradictions in it as the Genesis story has. The only thing I glean from the story is 'God' or the world has no rhyme or reason to why it is the way it is but I don't need to read a parable to know that; that knowledge easily comes from life experience.

How we live our life often determines our destination. Perhaps there was a time when things were simpler, perhaps even perfect. We have a shrouded history and we should ask; how much can history actually provide us? If the universe was in a different state at some point, following different scientific rules, how can we trace back to that history?

I think the time you may be referring to is called childhood (or a time where we didn't have to worry as we do when we are adults) but we often can not confront real world problems when we think as children do. I think the lesson that the story relays is to not question authority or your betters or else suffer the consequences. Oddly in western society, people who basically work and live hand to mouth mostly either don't question anything or can't do anything about it where as people in the position of power and authority see themselves above the law. Since most people either end up dead, in jail, or figure out how to ruthless manage their power over others if they are unwilling to accommodate those in authority I don't think it is a problem in western society or if it was it no longer is. But then again as a person partial to nihilism I'm unsure whether there is 'good' or 'evil' to begin with making it questionable whether the morality that any of parables try and teach have any real meaning. To me such issues seems like I'm trying to figure out how to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and the how to deal with such an issue (if there is any real issue to deal with) gets lost on me.