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

[JackDaydream]

It is possible that I take the existence of aliens more seriously than Hancock and I did flirt with ideas such as those of van Daniken.

Whether the first life was in Asia, Africa or some distant planet, the question still exists, what happened pre - Big Bang. Not sure aliens had much to do with this.

My understanding of God, is that he had the knowledge, power and the purpose to set the universe and life in motion.

Aristotle saw God as setting everything in motion. My biggest quibble would be whether there was ever a beginning as such. I know that this may seem odd but if there is a 'God' or any underlying force beyond mind and matter it would be eternal, or else there would be the question of when did God come into existence. Somehow, it may be about going beyond space and time, and this may go back to idealism and it may be asked does the concept of God rely on a philosophy of idealism, and the material world as being an outer manifestation of some intrinsic reality beyond the outer aspects?

[Sy Borg]

Jack, I don't see why godlessness should equate to a wasteland. In some ways, today is one of the very best times in human history to be alive. Most of us on the forum will live in a state of luxury beyond the dreams of Roman emperors, sans the slaves. Speaking of which, much of the world has been built on slavery. During much of history, slavery was not seen as cruel and abhorrent, just normal. That was back when we lived in a godly oasis rather than this godless wasteland, yes?

The decay you sense is the breakdown of systems under the weight of unprecedented human populations.

I am not sure that it is the sense of 'godlessness' in itself that leads to a wasteland. My idea of being in a cultural 'wasteland' goes back to TS Eliot, based on the twentieth century. This was a time when there were so many shifts in meaning, and it was the time in which cultural relativism was developing. The wasteland is more of about many voices and a sense of the individual person being insignificant. Where the aspect of godlessness may come in is about there being no underlying source of guidance and existential void.

As for whether it is the worst or best of times, in some ways human beings have so many luxuries but there are so many incrongruities. For example, obesity may occur in Western society amongst those who are less wealthy because they are trying to survive, and less able to afford to eat healthily than those who are more secure financially.

Also, in this time of supposed 'luxury' people are expected to be able to 'perform' almost like machines, possibly at the cost of valuing the individual as a human being. So, it may be like a loss of 'soul', especially as many would find the idea of 'soul' as ridiculous. It is the age of 'self', which corresponds with individualism, even though that is fading into people being mere meaningless numbers. Population growth is important here as people fade into the masses.

Every year since 1846 was better than before. That's when general anaesthetic was first put into practice. Before that, the docs would just get you pissed, put a strap of leather between your teeth, and they'd start sawing. Back then, doctors capable of fast amputations - being able to really quickly hack off a limb - were in great demand. There was one fellow who was a real whiz at it. Alas, in his haste, he once removed the wrong leg, which did his reputation little good.

How about when children were sent to work in coal mines with government approval before the 1890s labour union movement? Consider the carnage going on in China at the time. How about the 20th century? WW1, the Grea Depression and WWII. That takes us to 1954. I think some years between then and now were, on the whole, better than today, although not for minorities. I think the situation - better or worse - was pretty clear up to 1945. Since then, things are more complex, there have been both great advances and some troubling backsliding.

That's why people needed a deity. If I went through the struggles of people living in more brutal times I'd probably be God-bothering with the other drones. I'm with Camus. You can either deal with not having a social algorithm to follow, or you can abandon reason and and embrace whatever creed provides the most comfort.

[Stoppelmann]

I am not sure that it is the sense of 'godlessness' in itself that leads to a wasteland. My idea of being in a cultural 'wasteland' goes back to TS Eliot, based on the twentieth century. This was a time when there were so many shifts in meaning, and it was the time in which cultural relativism was developing. The wasteland is more of about many voices and a sense of the individual person being insignificant. Where the aspect of godlessness may come in is about there being no underlying source of guidance and existential void.

As for whether it is the worst or best of times, in some ways human beings have so many luxuries but there are so many incrongruities. For example, obesity may occur in Western society amongst those who are less wealthy because they are trying to survive, and less able to afford to eat healthily than those who are more secure financially.

Also, in this time of supposed 'luxury' people are expected to be able to 'perform' almost like machines, possibly at the cost of valuing the individual as a human being. So, it may be like a loss of 'soul', especially as many would find the idea of 'soul' as ridiculous. It is the age of 'self', which corresponds with individualism, even though that is fading into people being mere meaningless numbers. Population growth is important here as people fade into the masses.

Every year since 1846 was better than before. That's when general anaesthetic was first put into practice. Before that, the docs would just get you pissed, put a strap of leather between your teeth, and they'd start sawing. Back then, doctors capable of fast amputations - being able to really quickly hack off a limb - were in great demand. There was one fellow who was a real whiz at it. Alas, in his haste, he once removed the wrong leg, which did his reputation little good.

How about when children were sent to work in coal mines with government approval before the 1890s labour union movement? Consider the carnage going on in China at the time. How about the 20th century? WW1, the Grea Depression and WWII. That takes us to 1954. I think some years between then and now were, on the whole, better than today, although not for minorities. I think the situation - better or worse - was pretty clear up to 1945. Since then, things are more complex, there have been both great advances and some troubling backsliding.

That's why people needed a deity. If I went through the struggles of people living in more brutal times I'd probably be God-bothering with the other drones. I'm with Camus. You can either deal with not having a social algorithm to follow, or you can abandon reason and and embrace whatever creed provides the most comfort.

I think you are scraping the barrel here, and avoiding the misery that has occurred since the treatment of wounds that you describe here, and I’m with Jack that a we are suffering under the “Machine” and loss of soul. In a way the biggest fall occurs when hopes are dashed, and I can remember how much hope existed after the fall of the Soviet Union, that the twentieth century would see the end of such global conflicts. What we failed to realise was that the system we had faith in was unsustainable, having been built around the belief in continuous growth and consumerism, on the backs of less developed countries, who continued to have their resources plundered and their cheap labour exploited. This rampant materialism built the modern day economic system that pushed idealism and sustainability aside, so that even in social care, profit was the overbearing goal.

This belief spread among the populations of Western countries and, in time, Eastern countries as well, contradicting all the wisdom traditions that had at least played a role in the struggle against authoritarian regimes, but were quickly jettisoned in the belief that we, the people, can do anything. Of course, there is still a great deal of religious influence in America, but that seems to me to be more of an ideology that has little to do with its source, indeed ignores the source in many ways, and coincides with the praise of the American dream, which is nothing more than the hope that the materialistic god can deliver them from poverty if only they sacrifice enough. In some ways, I feel that this is a caricature of Christianity, but this impression seems to fit with a number of ideals that are still referred to as guiding principles in modern society.

It doesn’t help that an overbearing Christianity soiled itself over the centuries with its obsession with power, and shamed the image in their churches. But this is humanity missing the mark, falling short of what the wisdom teaching of the world sees as its potential, and in many ways its calling. The very question that you often hear, “Does God exist?” is deceptive and shows how wrapped up we are in a materialistic world view, unable to call up the sensitivity needed to sense the mystery that we only witness when our ego gets out of the way, and only speaks when we truly listen. Surrender is associated with Islam, but all wisdom teaches that we have resisted the mystery and only when we surrender our ego, do we have a chance to even comprehend the lessons to be learnt.

[Sy Borg]

Hi Stoppelmann. I don't think we've spoken before.

I maintain that every year since 1945 has been better than any time beforehand for the previously-mentioned reasons. We invariably compare our troubles today with the post-WWII years. We don't think much before that time because life was relatively "nasty, brutish and short".

I think the final nail in theism's coffin in the west came from the child molestation revelations. We found out that our trusted spiritual guides - who were supposed to guide us to the light - were in fact far darker than those they "led".

Yes, we are losing something by discarding unfounded belief in ancient myths, but losses are inevitable with change. The process is not so different to the losses of connection with the land and ancient spiritual practices when church-led expeditions of conquest dismissed indigenous people's wisdom. They treated them like fauna. Thousands of years of accumulated knowledge was lost. Now, religion's baby is about to be tossed out with the bathwater too, just as it did to older cultures.

The way I see it, growth demands loss. We become mature adults at the expense of youthful charm, energy, drive and creativity. Those who try to hang onto their youth for too long tend to be seen as ridiculous, tragic try-hards and wanna-bes. So I accept that losses will come as humanity matures. Three steps forward, two steps back. As with individuals, whether humanity survives long enough to become mature is not guaranteed.

[JackDaydream]

Jack, I don't see why godlessness should equate to a wasteland. In some ways, today is one of the very best times in human history to be alive. Most of us on the forum will live in a state of luxury beyond the dreams of Roman emperors, sans the slaves. Speaking of which, much of the world has been built on slavery. During much of history, slavery was not seen as cruel and abhorrent, just normal. That was back when we lived in a godly oasis rather than this godless wasteland, yes?

The decay you sense is the breakdown of systems under the weight of unprecedented human populations.

I am not sure that it is the sense of 'godlessness' in itself that leads to a wasteland. My idea of being in a cultural 'wasteland' goes back to TS Eliot, based on the twentieth century. This was a time when there were so many shifts in meaning, and it was the time in which cultural relativism was developing. The wasteland is more of about many voices and a sense of the individual person being insignificant. Where the aspect of godlessness may come in is about there being no underlying source of guidance and existential void.

As for whether it is the worst or best of times, in some ways human beings have so many luxuries but there are so many incrongruities. For example, obesity may occur in Western society amongst those who are less wealthy because they are trying to survive, and less able to afford to eat healthily than those who are more secure financially.

Also, in this time of supposed 'luxury' people are expected to be able to 'perform' almost like machines, possibly at the cost of valuing the individual as a human being. So, it may be like a loss of 'soul', especially as many would find the idea of 'soul' as ridiculous. It is the age of 'self', which corresponds with individualism, even though that is fading into people being mere meaningless numbers. Population growth is important here as people fade into the masses.

Every year since 1846 was better than before. That's when general anaesthetic was first put into practice. Before that, the docs would just get you pissed, put a strap of leather between your teeth, and they'd start sawing. Back then, doctors capable of fast amputations - being able to really quickly hack off a limb - were in great demand. There was one fellow who was a real whiz at it. Alas, in his haste, he once removed the wrong leg, which did his reputation little good.

How about when children were sent to work in coal mines with government approval before the 1890s labour union movement? Consider the carnage going on in China at the time. How about the 20th century? WW1, the Grea Depression and WWII. That takes us to 1954. I think some years between then and now were, on the whole, better than today, although not for minorities. I think the situation - better or worse - was pretty clear up to 1945. Since then, things are more complex, there have been both great advances and some troubling backsliding.

That's why people needed a deity. If I went through the struggles of people living in more brutal times I'd probably be God-bothering with the other drones. I'm with Camus. You can either deal with not having a social algorithm to follow, or you can abandon reason and and embrace whatever creed provides the most comfort.

I am sure that in many ways life has improved and each person's life situation is unique. It is difficult to make clear comparisons with previous times without having been living in them and have to rely on what information is known to us. The medicines which are taken for granted, like Insulin for diabetes and antibiotics didn't exist.

I am not denying all of thrdevelopments but do wonder if the heights of reaching for the 'best' have been achieved and a lot may deteriorate. It may not be about the technologies but about the management of resources. For example, in England there is such a crisis in the NHS and there is increasing poverty for many. Even with the transhumanist possibilities these are likely to be available for the elite rather than the entire populations.

As far as the question of God in relation to this, it may be about the idea of providence. Is there some power or prescence behind nature overseeing needs being met? This may be partly in relation to a psychological sense of faith, which may not be dependent on belief in God necessarily. But, many may despair and that can occur in religious people as well.

The sense of there being deeper purpose can be essential to carrying on in spite of adversity, and any shallow attempts to find this, with or without God's existence, may lead to a deadend brick wall. Some people may attend church not simply for God's help but for the community support as well. The nature of community bonds may be breaking down and many may be isolated with no one to turn to existential and in social life too.

[Stoppelmann]

Hi Stoppelmann. I don't think we've spoken before.

I maintain that every year since 1945 has been better than any time beforehand for the previously-mentioned reasons. We invariably compare our troubles today with the post-WWII years. We don't think much before that time because life was relatively "nasty, brutish and short".

No, I believe this is the first time.

"Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" is a quotation from Thomas Hobbes' book Leviathan, 1651, in which he described the natural state of mankind (the state pertaining before a central government is formed) as a "warre of every man against every man" and recommended what has now come to be known as the “social contract theory.”

However, the characteristics of Indigenous culture, for example in Canada, includes a long history of permanent settlements, agriculture, civic and ceremonial architecture, complex societal hierarchies, and trading networks. When a representative of the indigenous people from Canada came to France in the 17th century and saw the destitution of people on the streets of Paris he became angry and said, “And you called us savages? You are the savages, where did you see such poverty in our villages?” Everywhere that colonialists went, they found people with some kind of social contract within societies. It may not be the same as today, but the idea that life was brutish is normally taken from our perspective.

I think the final nail in theism's coffin in the west came from the child molestation revelations. We found out that our trusted spiritual guides - who were supposed to guide us to the light - were in fact far darker than those they "led".

I am less optimistic, although you do say the “final” nail, but as far as I am concerned, Christianity lost its way when Constantin gave the Church power. Since then it was always only in small pockets of spiritual communities, where the mystical tradition was preserved. These groups were dependent upon not being scrutinised, or that Rome was otherwise occupied. Exceptions confirm the rule. I am also reluctant to see the prophets, or Christ, or the apostles as torchbearers, rather they showed those willing the way out of the darkness. In fact, when they tried to be torchbearers, they were attacked and killed, which is why the idea of a “universal” church is an illusion.

Yes, we are losing something by discarding unfounded belief in ancient myths, but losses are inevitable with change. The process is not so different to the losses of connection with the land and ancient spiritual practices when church-led expeditions of conquest dismissed indigenous people's wisdom. They treated them like fauna. Thousands of years of accumulated knowledge was lost. Now, religion's baby is about to be tossed out with the bathwater too, just as it did to older cultures.

I’m a bit confused by the language you use, especially when you speak of “unfounded belief in ancient myths,” probably because I believe that ancient myths are vehicles or mediums that take you on a journey to an experience. The truth is “between the lines,” in the experience of when it is told, and comes to you in a moment of quietude, not in reading the stories like fiction, or even taking everything literally. You open the book you enter that world, when you close the book, you exit and the experience lingers. So the knowledge that was lost was more the ability to call upon that experience rather than facts and figures. I have a friend who wanted to learn verses by heart, which he did very well, but how they were connected eluded him.

The way I see it, growth demands loss. We become mature adults at the expense of youthful charm, energy, drive and creativity. Those who try to hang onto their youth for too long tend to be seen as ridiculous, tragic try-hards and wanna-bes. So I accept that losses will come as humanity matures. Three steps forward, two steps back. As with individuals, whether humanity survives long enough to become mature is not guaranteed.

You have a different view of maturity to me. For me, every generation has the task of reaching maturity and can have the advantage of having a teacher that can help you find that maturity. But all the same, each generation must go down that road, and rarely you find young people who shorten their search, most of us spend too much time being distracted, and many never spiritually mature. Technology suggests progress, but in fact it takes things out of our hands. As an example, I was manager of a stores office for the army in the 1980s and we worked on one of the first multi-workplace computers. Some of the staff were typists who were just copying numbers into the machine. One ordered a piece of conduit for a vehicle and when she was finished, she had the feeling that something was wrong, but she couldn’t check it and didn’t mention it to me. It was only when a warrant officer at Southhampton docks called me up, after having to find our telephone number, and asked if I really wanted ten HGV’s full of conduit, considering that we were only a station workshop, that it was stopped. The demand had gone through the system, the transport been signed off by an officer and it was only when an experienced warrant officer had a hunch that something was amiss that it was stopped. It is this experience that we need, less the automation that speeds things up but also veils what is going on.

Youthful charm, energy, drive, and creativity was a problem for my son, who is only 40, because his “code-crunchers” were updating software for customers without speaking to them and having no idea of what the task was that their customers were faced with. They had developed software for processes that worked with other processes, but the whole thing didn’t interest them. My son, as trouble-shooter was interested, and understood the problems the customers were having, when he spoke to the charming, energetic young people, they maintained that they should be dictating to the customer … My son is now self-employed. He says that AI technology isn’t the problem, but narrow-minded programmers who cannot see the whole picture. The same applies to all technological developments. I am not a humanist, in fact, I am very dubious about humanity.

The concept of God is another area in which people have taken ancient traditions and interpreted them to suit their current mindset rather than question that mindset on the grounds of traditions. The old man in the sky, the wish vending machine, the prayers before battle, the “blessing” of warships, are all signs of us wanting a god to conform with our ego. Wrong!

[Pattern-chaser]

So for me the notion of 'God' has to be meaningful in some profoundly important way, say in terms of purpose or goodness.

Yes, I think the 'purpose' of God is to offer a role model, and thereby offer some guidelines by which we live our lives. That's my opinion, of course, but I think that's why we have God(s); whether or not God exists, She still exerts this guiding role for those who believe. She doesn't have to actually exist for the guidance to be — and continue to be — useful and valuable.

I'm sure many believers would have difficulty with the above. This is just the way *I* see it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another.

It's surprising how many people doubt Zeus's existence.

Why can't they keep an open mind? How can they be so sure that Zeus is not real?

Ever the cynic!

Of course Zeus is real. He represents and illustrates for us certain aspects of the ineffable God, just as Ishtar does, and even the Great Prophet Zarquon.

But I'm sure you knew that.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the final nail in theism's coffin in the west came from the child molestation revelations. We found out that our trusted spiritual guides - who were supposed to guide us to the light - were in fact far darker than those they "led".

As far as I am aware, this criticism only applies to paedophiles who had infiltrated one particular sect: Christianity. The religious and spiritual 'schools' that I venerate have had no more problems with paedophiles than any other part or aspect of society (as far as I know). Your criticism doesn't apply to "theism", but only to Christianity, I think?

[JackDaydream]

I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another.

It's surprising how many people doubt Zeus's existence.

Why can't they keep an open mind? How can they be so sure that Zeus is not real?

Ever the cynic!

Of course Zeus is real. He represents and illustrates for us certain aspects of the ineffable God, just as Ishtar does, and even the Great Prophet Zarquon.

But I'm sure you knew that.

With the issue about whether Zeus is 'real' it depends on how images in the imagination are, and what is the basis for testing them. They are part of psychic reality and archetypes. It depends on how these are considered it could be asked to what extent are Santa Claus, Harry Potter or King Lear real? Some see them as fantasies whereas Jung saw the figures in the human psyche in way which was not reductive because he saw the psyche, or the collective unconscious as an objective reality. This may be equated with a form of idealism, mainly drawn from Eastern metaphysics.

[Sculptor1]

considering how we go on about being an advanced species, and having science to guide us.

Science is no more of a guide than religion, we are lead on the path we choose to follow.

THis is obviously not so.

Science tells us of the hazards of smoking, obesity, heroin, etc, millions of us ignore the science. Thanks to science we have moved on from swords to bombs. Science is possibly neutral, we choose how to use it for medicine or bombs.

1553 Astronomer Michael Servetus lured into the clutches of John Calvin and burned as a heretic.

The greatest commandments are to love God and our neighbours, we can do nothing greater. We are even commanded to love and pray for our enemies. If we choose to ignore the teachings of Jesus, that leaves us free to burn heretics.

Religion should lead to justice for the poor, the oppressed, widows, refugees, and for peace.

And yet everywhere they are in chains.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another.

It's surprising how many people doubt Zeus's existence.

Why can't they keep an open mind? How can they be so sure that Zeus is not real?

Ever the cynic!

Of course Zeus is real. He represents and illustrates for us certain aspects of the ineffable God, just as Ishtar does, and even the Great Prophet Zarquon.

But I'm sure you knew that.

With the issue about whether Zeus is 'real' it depends on how images in the imagination are, and what is the basis for testing them. They are part of psychic reality and archetypes. It depends on how these are considered it could be asked to what extent are Santa Claus, Harry Potter or King Lear real? Some see them as fantasies whereas Jung saw the figures in the human psyche in way which was not reductive because he saw the psyche, or the collective unconscious as an objective reality. This may be equated with a form of idealism, mainly drawn from Eastern metaphysics.

They are all real, in some sense or other. It's only the widespread insistence on understanding such things as a scientist might or would, that leads to confusion. Scientists, and some philosophers, have this strange idea that their conception of "real" or "reality" is the only possible one. What incredible conceit, right?

[JackDaydream]

I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another.

It's surprising how many people doubt Zeus's existence.

Why can't they keep an open mind? How can they be so sure that Zeus is not real?

Ever the cynic!

Of course Zeus is real. He represents and illustrates for us certain aspects of the ineffable God, just as Ishtar does, and even the Great Prophet Zarquon.

But I'm sure you knew that.

With the issue about whether Zeus is 'real' it depends on how images in the imagination are, and what is the basis for testing them. They are part of psychic reality and archetypes. It depends on how these are considered it could be asked to what extent are Santa Claus, Harry Potter or King Lear real? Some see them as fantasies whereas Jung saw the figures in the human psyche in way which was not reductive because he saw the psyche, or the collective unconscious as an objective reality. This may be equated with a form of idealism, mainly drawn from Eastern metaphysics.

They are all real, in some sense or other. It's only the widespread insistence on understanding such things as a scientist might or would, that leads to confusion. Scientists, and some philosophers, have this strange idea that their conception of "real" or "reality" is the only possible one. What incredible conceit, right?

The use of the word 'real' is complicated and it may be different in the philosophy sense to the one in common use. In particular, in psychiatry the person who is seen as believing hallucinatory experiences to be real is labelled as psychotic. I have known people who have thought that God was talking to them and if taken as 'real' it can have very dangerous consequences, such as a person following orders of voices. This sometimes happens and people have justified all kinds of acts, including killing, on the basis of this. So, if the experiences of the mind are taken literally it can be problematic rather than taken as real in the psychological sense. Often, I am relieved when I wake up after a bad dream and discover it didn't really happen. Therefore, I would argue that it is important to distinguish between real in the common place or material world and real in the symbolic or psychological way. This distinction may even be glossed over in spiritual and religious beliefs.

[Sy Borg]

I think the final nail in theism's coffin in the west came from the child molestation revelations. We found out that our trusted spiritual guides - who were supposed to guide us to the light - were in fact far darker than those they "led".

As far as I am aware, this criticism only applies to paedophiles who had infiltrated one particular sect: Christianity. The religious and spiritual 'schools' that I venerate have had no more problems with paedophiles than any other part or aspect of society (as far as I know). Your criticism doesn't apply to "theism", but only to Christianity, I think?

2.2 billion is a pretty big sect. Also, Muslims don't need to molest children, because they can marry them. I think Abrahamic religions in general share many of the same flaws, which is not surprising given their common root.

[Gertie]

So for me the notion of 'God' has to be meaningful in some profoundly important way, say in terms of purpose or goodness.

Yes, I think the 'purpose' of God is to offer a role model, and thereby offer some guidelines by which we live our lives. That's my opinion, of course, but I think that's why we have God(s); whether or not God exists, She still exerts this guiding role for those who believe. She doesn't have to actually exist for the guidance to be — and continue to be — useful and valuable.

I'm sure many believers would have difficulty with the above. This is just the way *I* see it.

Yes I agree  that's a god worth the title.  Otherwise you're revering power for its own sake, might is right, which doesn't sit well with me and is dangerous.  Or it's just another word for physics, volcanos, the sun, love, whatever, which we already have words for.

God as exemplar has risks too of course, without good evidence it leaves us open to bias - “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” - Anne Lamott.

Good people tend to want relatable, good gods I think, and if such a god exists we are in-credibly  lucky.  Paul's pitch which so influenced and universalised  Christianity was to see Jesus as perfect exemplar, who showed the right way to revere god via emulation, proven by the resurrection. (But with the faith caveat replacing good works/scriptural law  as the new criterion for  reward and punishment).