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

[JackDaydream]

@LuckyR
It is true that many are opposed to religious systems on the basis of the way in which they may have played a negative role in culture. The promise of an afterlife of happiness may have been used to justify people being expected to endure negative life conditions. However, there is a mixed picture, because there is also the possibility of hell, but that was used to frighten people often. Also, wars fought in the name of religion may have affected people and lead so many individuals to seek meaning through other means. I think that you are right to say that consumerism has replaced religious meaning for many. But, it is likely that consumer materialism is breaking down, and a lot of people are realising that consuming so much is having a negative effect on ecology and leads to clutter, and a lot of people are in poverty. So, the question may be what comes next? Even if mainstream religious perspectives are queries, I wonder if it will signify some important on spirituality of some kind as a way of sustaining meaning and cohesion in culture and on an individual level.

[JackDaydream]

@3017Metaphysician

I thank you for your detailed reply, and the quotes from Einstein and Hawking. They are both extremely good writers and relevant to the issue of the question of God and religious thinking in making sense of life and its many big questions.

In relation to your question about the way in which this relates to metaphysics and self awareness, I will say that Reza Azlan does address it directly in, 'God: A Human History of Religion', speaking of the way in which in the development of human thinking and religious worldviews human beings constructed the idea of the 'soul'. This concept was important as a basis for the idea of making the connection with the making of a connection between the human mind and the idea of the divine, or God. The emphasis is upon conscious experience as a source of knowledge about how reality works. Azlan argues,
'One can choose to view humanity's universal belief in the soul as born of confusion or faulty reasoning; a trick of the mind or an accident of evolution. '

The idea of the soul was emphasised by Jung, although he sometimes calls it psyche, as the basis for knowledge about God. He draws upon Kant's metaphysics about not being able to know the transcendent directly but the importance of intuition in the human mind. This lead to a basis for emphasis on the dimensions of inner experiences, including those of a numinous nature, or 'spiritual' experiences. He makes a correspondence between these and the 'divine'.

Psychology in the twentieth first century often talks about self and self awareness, but the idea of the 'soul' is rarely used, and perhaps this plays a role as some 'missing link' which has become lost. The idea of the self may be a little different from the soul, and it may be that the idea of the soul had more of a perspective on the emphasis of the 'divine' aspect within consciousness, rather than the idea of the self.

[JackDaydream]

@Belindi
You speak of icons and these have been central in religious perspectives but you describe them as 'abstractions'. The problem which I see with this is that it would involve the idea that they are made up. The issue is whether symbols and images are entirely the product of the mind or not? Do they in any way relate to a dimension which is beyond consciousness?

[JackDaydream]

@Steve3007
Thanks for your reply and link to the 'theory of mind' concept definition. It is an interesting aspect for thinking about the evolution of concepts of gods in an evolutionary way. Of course, it is true that human beings tend to anthromorphize. Basically, it may come down to are human beings modelling an idea of gods or God on themselves or whether human beings are a reflection of some larger reality beyond themselves? I don't think that it is an easy question to answer.

[Belindi]

@Belindi
You speak of icons and these have been central in religious perspectives but you describe them as 'abstractions'. The problem which I see with this is that it would involve the idea that they are made up. The issue is whether symbols and images are entirely the product of the mind or not? Do they in any way relate to a dimension which is beyond consciousness?

If I spoke of icons as abstractions that was remiss of me. Icons are very much concrete things of flesh and blood, or paint and canvas, or photography. The use of icons is they serve as substitutes for language used to describe often complex abstract ideas. Icons are much more attractive, informative, and spectacular than would-be explicit explanations, or some boring sermon. As Steve pointed out icons may be culture specific.

"A dimension beyond consciousness"? I don't understand what you mean by this. If you mean transcending this world of experience, then I think icons can inform and enlarge on this very world's experience and they serve as means for learning. For instance in another post I claimed Marilyn Monroe is iconic. In Marilyn beauty and tragedy are combined in the one personage. If you see her films and learn of her life you can understand, with feeling affect, the nature of beauty + tragedy and the sad transience of beauty.

[Sculptor1]

I have been wondering about the essential unified aspects and divergent aspects of the relationship between philosophy and religion. This relates to the origins of the two quests and to what extent they come from different angles.

I have been reading,'God: A Human History of Religion', by Reza Aslan, (2017), which looks at the way in which ideas about God arise, saying,
'It turns out that this compulsion to humanize the divine is hardwired into our brains, which is why it has become a central feature in almost every religious tradition the world has ever known'.

Since we are now in a more enlightened world where religious skepticism is at an all time high, we find apologists struggling to re-invent god to try to preseve some sembalnce of credibility.
For my money this is an abject failure.
This quote misses a far more important question. By ignoring the clearly bogus status of "divine", this absurd assumption is where the preservation of "god" resides. Instead of launching this idea by assuming "divinity" is a meaningful or valid concept it would make far more sense to not only ask why humans anthropomorphise the "divine" ,but why humans have invetned the "divine" in the first place?
This vauge and diffuse term has no basis in reality, and much like "god" is little more than a phantom of the human imagination.

The author is referring to images of God, and is not making any claims that such ideas correspond to an objective 'God'.

How may the need for religious ideas, especially the idea of God be understood?. Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas? Will the ideas and worldviews of religion become obsolete and, what role does philosophy have in such exploration?

The Other thing I would immediately object to is the notion that "the divine" (whatever that is) is hard-wired into the brain.

[JackDaydream]

@Belindi

I had seen your post about icons and Marilyn Monroe. I have not seen her films but have seen her films and my biggest connection with her is Elton John's 'Candle in the Wind'. Icons of this kind, including Elvis, Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain can be seen as legendary ancestors, and they say a lot about Western culture.

It is an interesting contrast to the icons of religion and the nature of religious art. But, the underlying aspect may be the underlying way in which values are conveyed. In its basics, Mircea Eliade, spoke of the way in which religions are concerned about the sacred and the profane. It is likely that what is considered sacred in the present time is rather different from past ages and that there are big cultural differences.

When I speak of 'dimensions', I say this playfully and it is hard to know what is the limits of the human imagination, but I keep an open mind to there being 4, 5 or more dimensions, and the idea of the multiverse.

[LuckyR]

@LuckyR
It is true that many are opposed to religious systems on the basis of the way in which they may have played a negative role in culture. The promise of an afterlife of happiness may have been used to justify people being expected to endure negative life conditions. However, there is a mixed picture, because there is also the possibility of hell, but that was used to frighten people often. Also, wars fought in the name of religion may have affected people and lead so many individuals to seek meaning through other means. I think that you are right to say that consumerism has replaced religious meaning for many. But, it is likely that consumer materialism is breaking down, and a lot of people are realising that consuming so much is having a negative effect on ecology and leads to clutter, and a lot of people are in poverty. So, the question may be what comes next? Even if mainstream religious perspectives are queries, I wonder if it will signify some important on spirituality of some kind as a way of sustaining meaning and cohesion in culture and on an individual level.

We are in agreement (I believe). A lot of the original or at least early purposes of religion are currently unnecessary, thus freeing up religion to provide the psychological and emotional support that it has since it's invention, but was overshadowed by side topics.

[JackDaydream]

Yes, I am aware that the idea of the 'divine' being hardwired into the brain is open to question and, how much is about socialisation and cultural processes. It is interesting that people seem to vary so much in disposition too, with some finding such comfort and support in religious worldviews and others finding these to be so stressful and unhelpful. This is partly the psychological aspect, and whether religion is intrinsic to human nature or not. The anthropologist GF Frazer spoke of the development of thought being from magic, religion and science. It may be that science is the dominant one at this stage. He also hinted that there may be one beyond these three possibilities but does not specify what it may be and I often wonder about this. But, human consciousness may change and it is hard to know if any specific ideas are actually hardwired

[JackDaydream]

@Sculptor1
The post above is my reply to you. I would also say that one book which is relevant is 'The Bicameral Mind', by Julian Jaynes, which looks at the way in which ancient people may have experienced consciousness a bit differently, experiencing thoughts as 'voices'. This would have been related to a less internalised understanding of thoughts, which were projected onto 'gods'. This may explain the tendency to anthromorphise and it may be that human beings have got to the stage of thinking where projecting onto external beings in the image of human beings is outgrown.

[Gee]

I have been wondering about the essential unified aspects and divergent aspects of the relationship between philosophy and religion. This relates to the origins of the two quests and to what extent they come from different angles.

For me, this is simple. I have studied the disciplines for years and find that religion studies emotion and philosophy studies knowledge. Both seek truth, but the differing paths they take are because of the different subject matter and this causes the divergent aspects.

Consider that emotion is not known -- it is felt. When a species advances as we have, we develop the ability to interpret and mentally assign identity to emotion, which is when it becomes spirituality. Spirituality is just emotion with identity -- you could say that "God" is the same thing. This probably sounds too simple, but it is hard to explain it more fully.

I have been reading,'God: A Human History of Religion', by Reza Aslan, (2017), which looks at the way in which ideas about God arise, saying,
'It turns out that this compulsion to humanize the divine is hardwired into our brains, which is why it has become a central feature in almost every religious tradition the world has ever known'.
The author is referring to images of God, and is not making any claims that such ideas correspond to an objective 'God'.

I would not say that it is "hardwired into our brains", as that gives a very wrong impression. I would also not call it a "compulsion" and find it to be more an instinctive interpretation.

The "God" idea is a central feature because emotion is a central feature in all people and religion studies emotion. Emotion also works through the unconscious aspect of mind.
This means that we are not conscious of it, or we have no knowledge of it -- only experience and the memory of that experience. Much like instincts, which also work through the unconscious, we recognize emotion after it happens.
This also means that once we recognize it, we try to interpret it into knowledge. This is where a lot of the symbolism is added and where art, poetry, dance, music, etc., adds to our knowledge of it.

It is also important to note that the unconscious has a very weird logic and many levels do not recognize time. So, the logic of "this and therefore that" does not apply because it is dependent on time. In short, the unconscious is not rational, but we have discovered that there are some ways that we can understand its "thinking". One of the ways that it processes information is to accept that "the part represents the whole". I have taken this to mean that with the "God" idea, we see our self, our culture, and our "God" as being the part representing the whole, so "God" would look like us.

How may the need for religious ideas, especially the idea of God be understood?.

The only way this is possible is to take emotion and give it form and identity.

Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?

Mostly for bonding. And maybe for a feeling of wholeness.

Will the ideas and worldviews of religion become obsolete and, what role does philosophy have in such exploration?

I firmly believe that there are three disciplines; science that studies the physical; philosophy that studies the mental; and religion that studies the spiritual, complying with Socrates admonishment to "know thyself", as we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. I think they are all necessary.

A thousand years ago, religion decided that it was the beginning and end of knowledge. It accepted philosophy, as long as philosophy supported religion, and it dismissed the necessity of science as science studied things that were irrelevant, or it was dangerous. The result was the Dark Ages.

Right now, in many ways, science thinks that it is the beginning and end of knowledge. It accepts philosophy, as long as philosophy supports science, and it dismisses the necessity of religion as religion studies things that are irrelevant, or religion is dangerous. This is also out of balance.

The suppression of science eventually caused the Enlightenment. What do you think the suppression of religion would cause? Would we have a different kind of Dark Ages? I think so.

Gee

[Belindi]

I have been wondering about the essential unified aspects and divergent aspects of the relationship between philosophy and religion. This relates to the origins of the two quests and to what extent they come from different angles.

For me, this is simple. I have studied the disciplines for years and find that religion studies emotion and philosophy studies knowledge. Both seek truth, but the differing paths they take are because of the different subject matter and this causes the divergent aspects.

Consider that emotion is not known -- it is felt. When a species advances as we have, we develop the ability to interpret and mentally assign identity to emotion, which is when it becomes spirituality. Spirituality is just emotion with identity -- you could say that "God" is the same thing. This probably sounds too simple, but it is hard to explain it more fully.

I have been reading,'God: A Human History of Religion', by Reza Aslan, (2017), which looks at the way in which ideas about God arise, saying,
'It turns out that this compulsion to humanize the divine is hardwired into our brains, which is why it has become a central feature in almost every religious tradition the world has ever known'.
The author is referring to images of God, and is not making any claims that such ideas correspond to an objective 'God'.

I would not say that it is "hardwired into our brains", as that gives a very wrong impression. I would also not call it a "compulsion" and find it to be more an instinctive interpretation.

The "God" idea is a central feature because emotion is a central feature in all people and religion studies emotion. Emotion also works through the unconscious aspect of mind.
This means that we are not conscious of it, or we have no knowledge of it -- only experience and the memory of that experience. Much like instincts, which also work through the unconscious, we recognize emotion after it happens.
This also means that once we recognize it, we try to interpret it into knowledge. This is where a lot of the symbolism is added and where art, poetry, dance, music, etc., adds to our knowledge of it.

It is also important to note that the unconscious has a very weird logic and many levels do not recognize time. So, the logic of "this and therefore that" does not apply because it is dependent on time. In short, the unconscious is not rational, but we have discovered that there are some ways that we can understand its "thinking". One of the ways that it processes information is to accept that "the part represents the whole". I have taken this to mean that with the "God" idea, we see our self, our culture, and our "God" as being the part representing the whole, so "God" would look like us.

How may the need for religious ideas, especially the idea of God be understood?.

The only way this is possible is to take emotion and give it form and identity.

Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?

Mostly for bonding. And maybe for a feeling of wholeness.

Will the ideas and worldviews of religion become obsolete and, what role does philosophy have in such exploration?

I firmly believe that there are three disciplines; science that studies the physical; philosophy that studies the mental; and religion that studies the spiritual, complying with Socrates admonishment to "know thyself", as we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. I think they are all necessary.

A thousand years ago, religion decided that it was the beginning and end of knowledge. It accepted philosophy, as long as philosophy supported religion, and it dismissed the necessity of science as science studied things that were irrelevant, or it was dangerous. The result was the Dark Ages.

Right now, in many ways, science thinks that it is the beginning and end of knowledge. It accepts philosophy, as long as philosophy supports science, and it dismisses the necessity of religion as religion studies things that are irrelevant, or religion is dangerous. This is also out of balance.

The suppression of science eventually caused the Enlightenment. What do you think the suppression of religion would cause? Would we have a different kind of Dark Ages? I think so.

Gee

In order to get to the more interesting point I choose to skate over Gee's treatment of religion as if it were a person who "thinks", "decided", and "studies". I will also skate over Gee's idea that emotion is not a physical process.

The suppression of science did not "cause the Enlightenment". The scientific enlightenment is more likely 'caused' by the invention of the printing press. In fact the scientific enlightenment followed on the religious Reformation , and subsequent political revolutions.

The suppression of religion has been tried. It was tried by a nomadic tribe that needed to make enemies of gods of place. It was tried by an Catholic English Queen known as Bloody Mary. It was tried by Elizabeth the First of England who was a Protestant who disapproved of Catholicism. The suppression of Judaism was done by Hitler's Nazis. Theism is suppressed by various dictatorial regimes. In the USA the followers of Joseph McCarthy, 1950s, were religious in their zeal against 'communists'.
It is wrong to suppress religion because 1. people need to believe some myth or other, and 2. The mainstream religions that have lasted a long time and partake of the same basic ethic, and varieties of the same or similar myths, are conducive to peace and cooperation between individuals and peoples.

[3017Metaphysician]

@3017Metaphysician

I thank you for your detailed reply, and the quotes from Einstein and Hawking. They are both extremely good writers and relevant to the issue of the question of God and religious thinking in making sense of life and its many big questions.

In relation to your question about the way in which this relates to metaphysics and self awareness, I will say that Reza Azlan does address it directly in, 'God: A Human History of Religion', speaking of the way in which in the development of human thinking and religious worldviews human beings constructed the idea of the 'soul'. This concept was important as a basis for the idea of making the connection with the making of a connection between the human mind and the idea of the divine, or God. The emphasis is upon conscious experience as a source of knowledge about how reality works. Azlan argues,
'One can choose to view humanity's universal belief in the soul as born of confusion or faulty reasoning; a trick of the mind or an accident of evolution. '

The idea of the soul was emphasised by Jung, although he sometimes calls it psyche, as the basis for knowledge about God. He draws upon Kant's metaphysics about not being able to know the transcendent directly but the importance of intuition in the human mind. This lead to a basis for emphasis on the dimensions of inner experiences, including those of a numinous nature, or 'spiritual' experiences. He makes a correspondence between these and the 'divine'.

Psychology in the twentieth first century often talks about self and self awareness, but the idea of the 'soul' is rarely used, and perhaps this plays a role as some 'missing link' which has become lost. The idea of the self may be a little different from the soul, and it may be that the idea of the soul had more of a perspective on the emphasis of the 'divine' aspect within consciousness, rather than the idea of the self.

Jack!

You are welcome!

Too, I think your notion of the 'soul' can be similar to the metaphysical definition/concept of the will (or Schopenhauer's definition if you prefer) where the will is the center of mind and body around which revolve all the activities that constitute consciousness; the avenue through which the I AM expresses its potentiality.

[Gee]

I have been wondering about the essential unified aspects and divergent aspects of the relationship between philosophy and religion. This relates to the origins of the two quests and to what extent they come from different angles.

For me, this is simple. I have studied the disciplines for years and find that religion studies emotion and philosophy studies knowledge. Both seek truth, but the differing paths they take are because of the different subject matter and this causes the divergent aspects.

Consider that emotion is not known -- it is felt. When a species advances as we have, we develop the ability to interpret and mentally assign identity to emotion, which is when it becomes spirituality. Spirituality is just emotion with identity -- you could say that "God" is the same thing. This probably sounds too simple, but it is hard to explain it more fully.

I have been reading,'God: A Human History of Religion', by Reza Aslan, (2017), which looks at the way in which ideas about God arise, saying,
'It turns out that this compulsion to humanize the divine is hardwired into our brains, which is why it has become a central feature in almost every religious tradition the world has ever known'.
The author is referring to images of God, and is not making any claims that such ideas correspond to an objective 'God'.

I would not say that it is "hardwired into our brains", as that gives a very wrong impression. I would also not call it a "compulsion" and find it to be more an instinctive interpretation.

The "God" idea is a central feature because emotion is a central feature in all people and religion studies emotion. Emotion also works through the unconscious aspect of mind.
This means that we are not conscious of it, or we have no knowledge of it -- only experience and the memory of that experience. Much like instincts, which also work through the unconscious, we recognize emotion after it happens.
This also means that once we recognize it, we try to interpret it into knowledge. This is where a lot of the symbolism is added and where art, poetry, dance, music, etc., adds to our knowledge of it.

It is also important to note that the unconscious has a very weird logic and many levels do not recognize time. So, the logic of "this and therefore that" does not apply because it is dependent on time. In short, the unconscious is not rational, but we have discovered that there are some ways that we can understand its "thinking". One of the ways that it processes information is to accept that "the part represents the whole". I have taken this to mean that with the "God" idea, we see our self, our culture, and our "God" as being the part representing the whole, so "God" would look like us.

How may the need for religious ideas, especially the idea of God be understood?.

The only way this is possible is to take emotion and give it form and identity.

Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?

Mostly for bonding. And maybe for a feeling of wholeness.

Will the ideas and worldviews of religion become obsolete and, what role does philosophy have in such exploration?

I firmly believe that there are three disciplines; science that studies the physical; philosophy that studies the mental; and religion that studies the spiritual, complying with Socrates admonishment to "know thyself", as we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. I think they are all necessary.

A thousand years ago, religion decided that it was the beginning and end of knowledge. It accepted philosophy, as long as philosophy supported religion, and it dismissed the necessity of science as science studied things that were irrelevant, or it was dangerous. The result was the Dark Ages.

Right now, in many ways, science thinks that it is the beginning and end of knowledge. It accepts philosophy, as long as philosophy supports science, and it dismisses the necessity of religion as religion studies things that are irrelevant, or religion is dangerous. This is also out of balance.

The suppression of science eventually caused the Enlightenment. What do you think the suppression of religion would cause? Would we have a different kind of Dark Ages? I think so.

Gee

In order to get to the more interesting point I choose to skate over Gee's treatment of religion as if it were a person who "thinks", "decided", and "studies". I will also skate over Gee's idea that emotion is not a physical process.

Belindi, you don't think I'm interesting? Damn it, I was trying to be interesting. It is certainly true that religion does not think, decide, or study; but it is also true that theology encompasses all of those things, and that is what I was considering.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think that emotion is not physical. I think that it is very much physical. I just don't think it is caused by a brain, although I can agree that it is recognized by a brain and that spirituality is likely caused by a brain.

The suppression of science did not "cause the Enlightenment". The scientific enlightenment is more likely 'caused' by the invention of the printing press. In fact the scientific enlightenment followed on the religious Reformation , and subsequent political revolutions.

I disagree. All things work in balance, the physical and the mental, so when that balance is disturbed and held in an unbalanced position for a long time, the result is a swing too far in the opposite direction -- like a large pendulum.

My understanding is that around 500AD, Augustine, who was a prolific writer, established most of the Christian church doctrine. He embraced Neoplatonism, but really hated Aristotle's work, and I don't think he liked logic at all. His main ideas were that belief in and following "God" was enough. His doctrines ushered us into the Dark Ages where the church was everything, thought was unnecessary, and belief was all that mattered. He also promoted warriors for "God", which was a validation for the eventual Crusades.

The interesting part is that about 500 years later, the Crusaders found Aristotle's work in the Middle East as it had been preserved by people who understood what great work it was. The work was brought back and studied, which opened minds to new ideas. So, from the years 1000 to 1200, thoughts were changing and adapting, then around 1200, Aquinas, who also was a prolific writer, rewrote church doctrine, which opened the doors to the Reformation and eventually the Enlightenment. What I find ironic is that Augustine's distain of Aristotle's work was nullified by his validation of warriors for Christ.

I agree that the printing press helped to distribute new ideas, but it did not cause new ideas. One has to look for another source for the cause.

The suppression of religion has been tried. It was tried by a nomadic tribe that needed to make enemies of gods of place. It was tried by an Catholic English Queen known as Bloody Mary. It was tried by Elizabeth the First of England who was a Protestant who disapproved of Catholicism. The suppression of Judaism was done by Hitler's Nazis. Theism is suppressed by various dictatorial regimes. In the USA the followers of Joseph McCarthy, 1950s, were religious in their zeal against 'communists'.

These examples are not about "suppression" of religion; they are about power and control, or suppression of specific religions or specific thoughts. Augustine did something similar and was probably trying to adapt this new religion to replace some other religious ideas. It is when one discipline (religion in this case) tries to dominate the other disciplines (science in this case) that problems arise and balance is disturbed.

It is wrong to suppress religion because 1. people need to believe some myth or other, and 2. The mainstream religions that have lasted a long time and partake of the same basic ethic, and varieties of the same or similar myths, are conducive to peace and cooperation between individuals and peoples.

It is wrong to try to suppress religion because it won't work. You may get away with it for a little while, but eventually you will notice that all of the lovely subjective intangibles, like integrity, honesty, compassion, etc., start to disappear. Then people will find that they don't know what to believe in or what is true. Then there will be revolution, reformation, or change that may be uncomfortable or even deadly while the situation rebalances.

Gee

[Greatest I am]

[stevie

Philosophies and religions both can be seen as having ideologies.

The way I read the bible, there is no conflict between the naturalistic religion it sells and human nature based philosophies/ideologies, ----once you take the foolish supernatural belief that Christianity used to bring in their own continuing Dark Age.

When the supernatural rears it's ugly head, that is when the problem of evil is created.

Nature has no problem of evil.

That is why Gnostic Christians, like Jesus, can see the heaven we live in.

We truly live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world.

Regards
DL