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

[JackDaydream]

Believing, or not believing has little meaning. The challenge is, what do your beliefs inspire you to do, how much do you really trust in God? I can sit here and say, I believe parachuting is safe. But the only time I put my trust in parachuting, is when I put one on, go up in a plane and jump.

Faith and trust in God has helped me for the last fifteen years, when I go out with the Street Pastors. We wonder the streets of our town until 3-4 am, to listen, care and help when we can. We meet lots of wonderful people, troubled and those suffering the darkest of despair. We have walked in the middle of many fights, including times when broken bottles have been used as weapons.

Faith and trust in God; has helped me to find a profound sense of peace; when I am out on the streets.

You are right to see the connection between faith in God and how it is embodied in human life and relating to other people and caring for them. Sometimes, the issue of belief in God can become merely abstract and detached from life within philosophy. Of course, it may not be essential to believe in God as such to have care and compassion. Dostoevsky's argument that everything is permissible if God does not exist is open to challenge.

[LuckyR]

There's the rub. Faith is inherent and spontaneous. You can't decide to believe something - you either believe, disbelieve or question.

So religious demands to believe are manipulative. They do not expect belief, but obedience. Very understandable, given what a wild bunch of loons humans were in that place and time. Leaders had to do something to stop people from killing, raping and robbing each other like a troupe of chimps, in the hope of forming a functional and civilised society, or at least "civilised" according to the standards of the time.

Good on the old Christians. They helped to make modern civilisation possible, but it's psychologically unhealthy to take on board ancient schemes designed to keep people under control without considering context.

There are timeless passages in the Bible, just as there were timeless observations by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. However, the Bible is a blend of many things - mythology, history, politics, art, ethics, civics, psychology, propaganda (pity the hatchet job they did on the poor old Canaanites), etc - all rolled up in a single book. The ancients did not specialise - knowledge was just knowledge - not split into categories.

The ability to create and then believe in the nonphysical is what separates H sapiens from all the other humans and of course from other animals. As you cite it allowed large groups to coalesce and great projects to be completed.

But we shouldn't look down on god myths while we believe in current myths like the legal system, the financial system and corporations. They all have their place.

I would think that the main difference between humans and other animals is technology, made possible by our big brains and manual dexterity. What was religion but a form of social technology - a means to control the "machinery" of societies? Language is another form of social technology that made a great difference. It should be said that Neanderthals were believed to be intellectually similar to H. sapiens (hence all the cross-breeding).

Religions have been given plenty enough respect IMO. In fact, they basically had a free run until people realised that they were using the freedom that came from being implicitly trusted as "good people" to rape young boys.

I don't think that religions should be entirely rejected any more than Christian colonists (ie. invaders) should have entirely rejected the knowledge of indigenous people. In that instance, the Christians threw the baby out with the bathwater, and numerous environmental disasters from naive land management followed because so much environmental knowledge was lost.

Ultimately, I think the most important lesson from religions is that humans are not the be-all-and-end-all, that there are far larger forces at play of which we are just a part. Sadly, this lesson warning against anthropocentrism has been reversed, with theists believing that humans are potentially divine, resulting in great cruelty and ruthlessness being shown to other denizens of the planet.

Actually other humans (than H sapiens) such as Neanderthals and other animals, had access to both language and technology (in the form of tools). What sets H sapiens apart is the ability to create and believe in common myths, thus enabling cooperation beyond the number of individuals that one is personally familiar with. Naturally the gains in say, technology capable of coming from a group of thousands is going to be superior to that from several dozen. Hence why we're having this discussion on the interweb (and Neanderthals apparently can't).

In the Modern era, we use mythologies routinely, be they ancient ones like religion, nation states, the legal and financial systems, or relatively new ones, like corporations or crypto currency. The ability to believe in the nonphysical is baked into who we are. We just need to acknowledge what is phycically real and what is agreed upon convention.

[EricPH]

There has been so much corruption done under the banner of belief in God, which is the exact opposite of the message of Christ's teachings.

Sadly, I think you are right. The teachings of Christ are profoundly simple, you can do nothing greater than love God and to love your neighbours as you love yourself. We are even asked to love, forgive and to pray for our enemies. If we followed the teachings of Christ, then Christianity would not have such a bad name.

This is more a demonstration of human hypocrisy rather than showing whether God does or does not exist.

Hypocrisy is easy. Probably, the majority of child molesting priests, preached the right Gospel to their parishioners, but chose to do the opposite themselves. The cover ups almost seem to be the greater crime.

[Sy Borg]

There's the rub. Faith is inherent and spontaneous. You can't decide to believe something - you either believe, disbelieve or question.

So religious demands to believe are manipulative. They do not expect belief, but obedience. Very understandable, given what a wild bunch of loons humans were in that place and time. Leaders had to do something to stop people from killing, raping and robbing each other like a troupe of chimps, in the hope of forming a functional and civilised society, or at least "civilised" according to the standards of the time.

Good on the old Christians. They helped to make modern civilisation possible, but it's psychologically unhealthy to take on board ancient schemes designed to keep people under control without considering context.

There are timeless passages in the Bible, just as there were timeless observations by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. However, the Bible is a blend of many things - mythology, history, politics, art, ethics, civics, psychology, propaganda (pity the hatchet job they did on the poor old Canaanites), etc - all rolled up in a single book. The ancients did not specialise - knowledge was just knowledge - not split into categories.

The ability to create and then believe in the nonphysical is what separates H sapiens from all the other humans and of course from other animals. As you cite it allowed large groups to coalesce and great projects to be completed.

But we shouldn't look down on god myths while we believe in current myths like the legal system, the financial system and corporations. They all have their place.

I would think that the main difference between humans and other animals is technology, made possible by our big brains and manual dexterity. What was religion but a form of social technology - a means to control the "machinery" of societies? Language is another form of social technology that made a great difference. It should be said that Neanderthals were believed to be intellectually similar to H. sapiens (hence all the cross-breeding).

Religions have been given plenty enough respect IMO. In fact, they basically had a free run until people realised that they were using the freedom that came from being implicitly trusted as "good people" to rape young boys.

I don't think that religions should be entirely rejected any more than Christian colonists (ie. invaders) should have entirely rejected the knowledge of indigenous people. In that instance, the Christians threw the baby out with the bathwater, and numerous environmental disasters from naive land management followed because so much environmental knowledge was lost.

Ultimately, I think the most important lesson from religions is that humans are not the be-all-and-end-all, that there are far larger forces at play of which we are just a part. Sadly, this lesson warning against anthropocentrism has been reversed, with theists believing that humans are potentially divine, resulting in great cruelty and ruthlessness being shown to other denizens of the planet.

Actually other humans (than H sapiens) such as Neanderthals and other animals, had access to both language and technology (in the form of tools). What sets H sapiens apart is the ability to create and believe in common myths, thus enabling cooperation beyond the number of individuals that one is personally familiar with. Naturally the gains in say, technology capable of coming from a group of thousands is going to be superior to that from several dozen. Hence why we're having this discussion on the interweb (and Neanderthals apparently can't).

In the Modern era, we use mythologies routinely, be they ancient ones like religion, nation states, the legal and financial systems, or relatively new ones, like corporations or crypto currency. The ability to believe in the nonphysical is baked into who we are. We just need to acknowledge what is phycically real and what is agreed upon convention.

Saying that Neanderthals and animals had access to language and technology equivalent to that of H. Sapiens is like saying that an office worker and Jeff Bezos have the same situation because they both have access to money and resources. Matters of degree matter.

Neanderthals are indeed chatting on the internet to a small extent because billions of people have Neanderthal DNA, especially East Asians. Note that East Asian IQs are routinely measured as higher than others. I would not suggest that that means Neanderthals were smarter, but that DNA does not seem to have been a hindrance. More pertinently, it's likely that Neanderthals also held common myths, but their more robust physiology, presumably with higher energy needs, is believed to have been less able to cope with climate changes.

There is no doubt that belief in agency of non-sentient entities is a genetic inheritance, handed down by brains shaped by belief over numerous generations. If you put aside the superstitions of Abrahamic religions (esp Christianity and Islam), most people largely agree about what is physically real or not. As I have said quite a few times here, I think God exists as a subjective phenomenon and it strikes me that many theists object to this concept due to their their own unconscious materialism, automatically rating physical reality higher than subjective phenomena without questioning that assumption.

[Sy Borg]

I'm with Camus on this. Belief in the supernatural is one way to deal with the absurdity of being a meaning-seeking animal in an uncaring universe.

To a large extent, the question of the existence of God may come down to the issue of the supernatural. For the last couple of years, I have maintained that the idea of the existence of God depends on language and framing. However, I have been wondering recently if I am sidestepping from the underlying philosophical issue.

One book which I have been reading recently is , 'Miracles', by CS Lewis. The author gives an in depth discussion of the ideas of the natural and supernatural. One important passage is:
'The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism is not exactly the same as the difference between belief in God and disbelief. Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God. The great interlocking event called Nature might be such as to produce at some stage a great cosmic consciousness, an indwelling 'God' arising from the whole process as human mind arises (according to the Naturalists) from human organisms... What Naturalism cannot accept is the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it.'
As far as I see the aspect of anything 'outside Nature', may be the essential aspect to any belief in the existence of God, including Deism, in which there is the idea of God as the initial cause behind the scenes of the creation.

Well, that makes me more into naturalism than supernaturalism. James Randi offered supposed psychics a million dollars to demonstrate their powers. This offer was left on the table for decades and not one person succeeded, and offer was even maintained by his Foundation for a time after he passed away. That says a great deal to me. All it would have taken is one person. Just one. Over decades. For a million bucks.

I see no reason to believe in deism, although if ultra-advanced entities survive the death of their universe to persist on, that might qualify. Of course, there's a couple of layers of speculation there, so it's just an idea, not even a hypothesis.

[LuckyR]

The ability to create and then believe in the nonphysical is what separates H sapiens from all the other humans and of course from other animals. As you cite it allowed large groups to coalesce and great projects to be completed.

But we shouldn't look down on god myths while we believe in current myths like the legal system, the financial system and corporations. They all have their place.

I would think that the main difference between humans and other animals is technology, made possible by our big brains and manual dexterity. What was religion but a form of social technology - a means to control the "machinery" of societies? Language is another form of social technology that made a great difference. It should be said that Neanderthals were believed to be intellectually similar to H. sapiens (hence all the cross-breeding).

Religions have been given plenty enough respect IMO. In fact, they basically had a free run until people realised that they were using the freedom that came from being implicitly trusted as "good people" to rape young boys.

I don't think that religions should be entirely rejected any more than Christian colonists (ie. invaders) should have entirely rejected the knowledge of indigenous people. In that instance, the Christians threw the baby out with the bathwater, and numerous environmental disasters from naive land management followed because so much environmental knowledge was lost.

Ultimately, I think the most important lesson from religions is that humans are not the be-all-and-end-all, that there are far larger forces at play of which we are just a part. Sadly, this lesson warning against anthropocentrism has been reversed, with theists believing that humans are potentially divine, resulting in great cruelty and ruthlessness being shown to other denizens of the planet.

Actually other humans (than H sapiens) such as Neanderthals and other animals, had access to both language and technology (in the form of tools). What sets H sapiens apart is the ability to create and believe in common myths, thus enabling cooperation beyond the number of individuals that one is personally familiar with. Naturally the gains in say, technology capable of coming from a group of thousands is going to be superior to that from several dozen. Hence why we're having this discussion on the interweb (and Neanderthals apparently can't).

In the Modern era, we use mythologies routinely, be they ancient ones like religion, nation states, the legal and financial systems, or relatively new ones, like corporations or crypto currency. The ability to believe in the nonphysical is baked into who we are. We just need to acknowledge what is phycically real and what is agreed upon convention.

Saying that Neanderthals and animals had access to language and technology equivalent to that of H. Sapiens is like saying that an office worker and Jeff Bezos have the same situation because they both have access to money and resources. Matters of degree matter.

Neanderthals are indeed chatting on the internet to a small extent because billions of people have Neanderthal DNA, especially East Asians. Note that East Asian IQs are routinely measured as higher than others. I would not suggest that that means Neanderthals were smarter, but that DNA does not seem to have been a hindrance. More pertinently, it's likely that Neanderthals also held common myths, but their more robust physiology, presumably with higher energy needs, is believed to have been less able to cope with climate changes.

There is no doubt that belief in agency of non-sentient entities is a genetic inheritance, handed down by brains shaped by belief over numerous generations. If you put aside the superstitions of Abrahamic religions (esp Christianity and Islam), most people largely agree about what is physically real or not. As I have said quite a few times here, I think God exists as a subjective phenomenon and it strikes me that many theists object to this concept due to their their own unconscious materialism, automatically rating physical reality higher than subjective phenomena without questioning that assumption.

As you know I never said that animals and Neanderthals had EQUIVALENT levels of mastery of language and technology to H sapiens, rather I was pointing out that neither were the exclusive domain of H sapiens and thus do not explain our ascension to the top of the pyramid. As to Neanderthals having common myths, I am unaware of any evidence of distant trade in their known living sites, which implies living in individual bands as opposed to the sort of commonality required for distant trade, ie cooperation between bands. Meanwhile proof of distant trade is commonly found in H sapiens excavations of similar time periods.

Of course the 6% of Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans and about 5% of Denisovan DNA in some modern Asians do prove interbreeding, the small percentages imply a relative rarity of the practice, which is difficult to interpret and in itself may not imply anything about typical behavior of either.

[Sy Borg]

I would think that the main difference between humans and other animals is technology, made possible by our big brains and manual dexterity. What was religion but a form of social technology - a means to control the "machinery" of societies? Language is another form of social technology that made a great difference. It should be said that Neanderthals were believed to be intellectually similar to H. sapiens (hence all the cross-breeding).

Religions have been given plenty enough respect IMO. In fact, they basically had a free run until people realised that they were using the freedom that came from being implicitly trusted as "good people" to rape young boys.

I don't think that religions should be entirely rejected any more than Christian colonists (ie. invaders) should have entirely rejected the knowledge of indigenous people. In that instance, the Christians threw the baby out with the bathwater, and numerous environmental disasters from naive land management followed because so much environmental knowledge was lost.

Ultimately, I think the most important lesson from religions is that humans are not the be-all-and-end-all, that there are far larger forces at play of which we are just a part. Sadly, this lesson warning against anthropocentrism has been reversed, with theists believing that humans are potentially divine, resulting in great cruelty and ruthlessness being shown to other denizens of the planet.

Actually other humans (than H sapiens) such as Neanderthals and other animals, had access to both language and technology (in the form of tools). What sets H sapiens apart is the ability to create and believe in common myths, thus enabling cooperation beyond the number of individuals that one is personally familiar with. Naturally the gains in say, technology capable of coming from a group of thousands is going to be superior to that from several dozen. Hence why we're having this discussion on the interweb (and Neanderthals apparently can't).

In the Modern era, we use mythologies routinely, be they ancient ones like religion, nation states, the legal and financial systems, or relatively new ones, like corporations or crypto currency. The ability to believe in the nonphysical is baked into who we are. We just need to acknowledge what is phycically real and what is agreed upon convention.

Saying that Neanderthals and animals had access to language and technology equivalent to that of H. Sapiens is like saying that an office worker and Jeff Bezos have the same situation because they both have access to money and resources. Matters of degree matter.

Neanderthals are indeed chatting on the internet to a small extent because billions of people have Neanderthal DNA, especially East Asians. Note that East Asian IQs are routinely measured as higher than others. I would not suggest that that means Neanderthals were smarter, but that DNA does not seem to have been a hindrance. More pertinently, it's likely that Neanderthals also held common myths, but their more robust physiology, presumably with higher energy needs, is believed to have been less able to cope with climate changes.

There is no doubt that belief in agency of non-sentient entities is a genetic inheritance, handed down by brains shaped by belief over numerous generations. If you put aside the superstitions of Abrahamic religions (esp Christianity and Islam), most people largely agree about what is physically real or not. As I have said quite a few times here, I think God exists as a subjective phenomenon and it strikes me that many theists object to this concept due to their their own unconscious materialism, automatically rating physical reality higher than subjective phenomena without questioning that assumption.

As you know I never said that animals and Neanderthals had EQUIVALENT levels of mastery of language and technology to H sapiens, rather I was pointing out that neither were the exclusive domain of H sapiens and thus do not explain our ascension to the top of the pyramid. As to Neanderthals having common myths, I am unaware of any evidence of distant trade in their known living sites, which implies living in individual bands as opposed to the sort of commonality required for distant trade, ie cooperation between bands. Meanwhile proof of distant trade is commonly found in H sapiens excavations of similar time periods.

Of course the 6% of Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans and about 5% of Denisovan DNA in some modern Asians do prove interbreeding, the small percentages imply a relative rarity of the practice, which is difficult to interpret and in itself may not imply anything about typical behavior of either.

My point is that the difference between their and our use of tools is huge, and decisive. Also, apparently evidence of trade has been found far earlier than previously thought - 300,000 years ago.

The fact that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred to such an extent suggests that more was shared between the species than sex, so there was probably trading and other cooperative behaviours going on, as well as competition and aggression (the latter being a given).

Neanderthals probably presumed agency in the inanimate like their simian cousins, given they would have largely experienced the same selection pressures. There is some evidence of Neanderthal funeral rituals, but it's unclear whether these are about veneration of the dead or preparation for the afterlife.

[Pattern-chaser]

Even though many have argued that God exists or does not existed in a clear way, I see it as the hardest question in philosophy, because it is about the nature of reality itself.

Yes, I suppose religion, and the existence of God, is a common introduction to metaphysics and, as you say, "the nature of reality itself". For me, it was an eye-opener. I had never before encountered problems where there was little or no evidence, but the possible solutions to those problems held such deep interest for me, and for others too. Uncertainty is very hard for us to come to terms with, when we have had a typical Western education and upbringing, as I did (and again, many others too).

[Pattern-chaser]

Neanderthals are indeed chatting on the internet to a small extent because billions of people have Neanderthal DNA, especially East Asians. Note that East Asian IQs are routinely measured as higher than others. I would not suggest that that means Neanderthals were smarter, but that DNA does not seem to have been a hindrance. More pertinently, it's likely that Neanderthals also held common myths, but their more robust physiology, presumably with higher energy needs, is believed to have been less able to cope with climate changes.

My suspicion is that the struggle between Sapiens and Neanderthal was like that of VHS versus Betamax. It doesn't matter which one was 'the best' — in this case, it was Betamax — but which one achieved customer-acceptance, i.e. VHS. I think Sapiens triumphed due to superior numbers, and probably killed — maybe even ate, afterward — all the Neanderthals. I have read that this is what happened to the predecessors of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, I don't know what evidence there is to back it up, though.

Of course Sapiens bred with Neanderthals, as our DNA records show, but given modern habits and practices (), it seems unlikely this breeding was entirely consensual...

[LuckyR]

Neanderthals are indeed chatting on the internet to a small extent because billions of people have Neanderthal DNA, especially East Asians. Note that East Asian IQs are routinely measured as higher than others. I would not suggest that that means Neanderthals were smarter, but that DNA does not seem to have been a hindrance. More pertinently, it's likely that Neanderthals also held common myths, but their more robust physiology, presumably with higher energy needs, is believed to have been less able to cope with climate changes.

My suspicion is that the struggle between Sapiens and Neanderthal was like that of VHS versus Betamax. It doesn't matter which one was 'the best' — in this case, it was Betamax — but which one achieved customer-acceptance, i.e. VHS. I think Sapiens triumphed due to superior numbers, and probably killed — maybe even ate, afterward — all the Neanderthals. I have read that this is what happened to the predecessors of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, I don't know what evidence there is to back it up, though.

Of course Sapiens bred with Neanderthals, as our DNA records show, but given modern habits and practices (), it seems unlikely this breeding was entirely consensual...

I agree, though the unspoken key to your opinion is that what allowed H sapiens to bring superior numbers to bear was likely a shared common mythology, which lacking such an ability, Neanderthals were limited to that of an individual band (about 150 individuals).

[Sy Borg]

I'll agree to disagree to keep the thread on track but evidence points to climate change being the driver of the Neanderthals' demise, not the religions of Homo sapiens, which simply would not have existed beyond the usual traditional animism and nature worship at that time. https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/201 ... ff78e10000

In short, Christianity did not defeat the Neanderthals any more than dinosaurs defeated the trilobites. A helluva lot happened in between.

In a rather dark irony, the nature that humans once worshipped are now treated with contempt.

[JackDaydream]

I'm with Camus on this. Belief in the supernatural is one way to deal with the absurdity of being a meaning-seeking animal in an uncaring universe.

To a large extent, the question of the existence of God may come down to the issue of the supernatural. For the last couple of years, I have maintained that the idea of the existence of God depends on language and framing. However, I have been wondering recently if I am sidestepping from the underlying philosophical issue.

One book which I have been reading recently is , 'Miracles', by CS Lewis. The author gives an in depth discussion of the ideas of the natural and supernatural. One important passage is:
'The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism is not exactly the same as the difference between belief in God and disbelief. Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God. The great interlocking event called Nature might be such as to produce at some stage a great cosmic consciousness, an indwelling 'God' arising from the whole process as human mind arises (according to the Naturalists) from human organisms... What Naturalism cannot accept is the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it.'
As far as I see the aspect of anything 'outside Nature', may be the essential aspect to any belief in the existence of God, including Deism, in which there is the idea of God as the initial cause behind the scenes of the creation.

Well, that makes me more into naturalism than supernaturalism. James Randi offered supposed psychics a million dollars to demonstrate their powers. This offer was left on the table for decades and not one person succeeded, and offer was even maintained by his Foundation for a time after he passed away. That says a great deal to me. All it would have taken is one person. Just one. Over decades. For a million bucks.

I see no reason to believe in deism, although if ultra-advanced entities survive the death of their universe to persist on, that might qualify. Of course, there's a couple of layers of speculation there, so it's just an idea, not even a hypothesis.

I have a large question mark around both the idea of the natural and supernatural. The idea of a force outside of creation rather than imminent within it seems problematic. Nevertheless, a creation without any inherent consciousness seems equally odd. Even if consciousness was emergent, it must have emerged from some source as unconscious potential. But, in thinking of such a force or potential this would be very different from the anthromorphism of the various deities, ranging from Zeus to Yahweh. It may be more equivalent to Zeus and the expression of this as a person in the form of Jesus, or as in Rudolf Steiner's idea of the Cosmic Christ.

I will admit that I find deism rather restrictive and am more inclined to the idea of synchrodestiny as developed by Deepak Chopra. This implies human beings have access to the source of reality. This would be compatible with the idea of the collective unconscious. As in my thread on intention, I would ar

[JackDaydream]

My post got sent as I was writing it with my left hand, as the other is in a cast, so continues here....

As I argued in my thread on intention I don't believe that events in daily life are coincidental. The nature of cause and effects may be far more complex and may involve the 'soul' as the underlying connection. In speaking of a soul I am not suggesting a disembodied entity but more of a faculty of self awareness and realisation which can be tapped into. Personally, I do see my own experiences as being an ongoing learning curve of experience, but not reward or punishment; but as the law of 'As you reap so you will sow'. This is more about the inner aspects of causation and may be linked with the idea of a personal relationship with God. Of course, this is at odds with materialistic determinism and, ultimately, neither the perspective of atheist materialism or a spiritual form of idealism can be verified in a definitive and final way.

[Sy Borg]

I'm with Camus on this. Belief in the supernatural is one way to deal with the absurdity of being a meaning-seeking animal in an uncaring universe.

To a large extent, the question of the existence of God may come down to the issue of the supernatural. For the last couple of years, I have maintained that the idea of the existence of God depends on language and framing. However, I have been wondering recently if I am sidestepping from the underlying philosophical issue.

One book which I have been reading recently is , 'Miracles', by CS Lewis. The author gives an in depth discussion of the ideas of the natural and supernatural. One important passage is:
'The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism is not exactly the same as the difference between belief in God and disbelief. Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God. The great interlocking event called Nature might be such as to produce at some stage a great cosmic consciousness, an indwelling 'God' arising from the whole process as human mind arises (according to the Naturalists) from human organisms... What Naturalism cannot accept is the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it.'
As far as I see the aspect of anything 'outside Nature', may be the essential aspect to any belief in the existence of God, including Deism, in which there is the idea of God as the initial cause behind the scenes of the creation.

Well, that makes me more into naturalism than supernaturalism. James Randi offered supposed psychics a million dollars to demonstrate their powers. This offer was left on the table for decades and not one person succeeded, and offer was even maintained by his Foundation for a time after he passed away. That says a great deal to me. All it would have taken is one person. Just one. Over decades. For a million bucks.

I see no reason to believe in deism, although if ultra-advanced entities survive the death of their universe to persist on, that might qualify. Of course, there's a couple of layers of speculation there, so it's just an idea, not even a hypothesis.

I have a large question mark around both the idea of the natural and supernatural. The idea of a force outside of creation rather than imminent within it seems problematic. Nevertheless, a creation without any inherent consciousness seems equally odd. Even if consciousness was emergent, it must have emerged from some source as unconscious potential. But, in thinking of such a force or potential this would be very different from the anthromorphism of the various deities, ranging from Zeus to Yahweh. It may be more equivalent to Zeus and the expression of this as a person in the form of Jesus, or as in Rudolf Steiner's idea of the Cosmic Christ.

I will admit that I find deism rather restrictive and am more inclined to the idea of synchrodestiny as developed by Deepak Chopra. This implies human beings have access to the source of reality. This would be compatible with the idea of the collective unconscious. As in my thread on intention, I would ar

You seem to be trending towards Spinoza's pantheism. If panspychism is real, then most of the universe's consciousness would be marginally proto-conscious. I like panvitalism, myself. I don't think there's a lot of mentality going on, other than that of big brained entities, but the entire edifice strikes me as alive. I never liked the idea that active biology is alive and everything else is "dead". As I always say, the line between our first viable common ancestor and its technically nonliving peers would have been subtle.

[Sy Borg]

My post got sent as I was writing it with my left hand, as the other is in a cast, so continues here....

As I argued in my thread on intention I don't believe that events in daily life are coincidental. The nature of cause and effects may be far more complex and may involve the 'soul' as the underlying connection. In speaking of a soul I am not suggesting a disembodied entity but more of a faculty of self awareness and realisation which can be tapped into. Personally, I do see my own experiences as being an ongoing learning curve of experience, but not reward or punishment; but as the law of 'As you reap so you will sow'. This is more about the inner aspects of causation and may be linked with the idea of a personal relationship with God. Of course, this is at odds with materialistic determinism and, ultimately, neither the perspective of atheist materialism or a spiritual form of idealism can be verified in a definitive and final way.

Then again, we cannot verify in a definitive and final way if we are simulations in godlike being's video game. Nor can we definitively very that we are not just brains in a vat,, dreaming our existence. (Though I find those ideas silly too).

So I go with probabilities and naturally lean towards atheism. Then again,, I'm not typical as I have a rather worshipful attitude towards the Earth and Sun, well worthy of the same reverence given to God - the reflection of Man's mind.

I don't see any reason to give Abrahamic religions a special pass over Greek or Norse mythology. As far as I can tell, the Abrahamic religions simply had better PR. Having said that, I am mindful of how European invaders threw the baby out with the bathwater when they invaded indigenous people's lands, ignoring the knowledge they had accumulated about their lands, and colonising Europeans' ignorance about conquered lands caused many problems for the environment and food supplies later on.

My guess is that the baby in the bathwater of religion is the idea that we are not the ultimate beings but part of something far larger and grander that we don't much understand. What do you think religion's baby and what do you see as the dirty bathwater to be tipped out?