Philosophy Discussion Forums

LuckyR wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:16 am The common understanding of what gods are has changed quite a bit over time. We are all familiar with primitive peoples taking technologically superior explorers for gods. Part of this extreme error can be attributed to confusion associated with addressing the unexpected. However, in the past gods, while more powerful than humans were not omnipotent. Thus the error is understandable.

This relatively superior, yet not absolutely superior position is logical and in fact predictable (psychologically) since humans are the most intelligent beings on the planet. But what would humans think about as gods if in fact there was a superior species on Earth and we were the second most intelligent species? Would we even bother?

Heck, there isn't even a word to describe a smarter and more powerful mortal. It goes from human directly to god. No in-between.

The issue of how ideas of the gods has changed so much over time is an extremely important aspect. The nature of the Hindu gods spoke of many powerful divinities, such as Shiva and Vishnu. They are distinct aspects which are understood as mythological beings. Julian Jaynes in, 'The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind', spoke of how early human beings, who had less awareness of the nature of inner life, as distinct from the outer world. Images and 'voices' were imagined and projected outside, rather than understood to be thoughts. They were attributed to gods. He explained how this was bound up with the evolution of consciousness, language and religion. This is relevant for thinking about the description of Moses experiencing the revelation of the ten commandments amidst the burning bushes.

For many, 'God is dead', as Nietzsche declared, although there are many who cling to religion, in its many forms. It is a question whether human beings are the smartest beings, especially if the gods, including the Judaeo- Christian depictions and all other divinities are abandoned and seen as relics from the past. It may place human beings as gods themselves, inflating the human being's superiority beyond all proportions. This may have contributed to the justification of the right to plunder the resources of the earth for human advantages alone.

Science has cast out the powers beyond that of the human perspective, once revered as gods, or God, with the symbolic being placed as the realm of the arts. Rudolf Ottto, in 'The Idea of the Holy', speaks of the numinous, as the transcendent aspects of experience. For certain people, this can be realised outside of religion, especially in the arts. However, for many this dimension may have become lost almost entirely, as symbolised by TS Eliot in the image of 'The Wasteland'. In particular, many may have been cut off from the symbolic or mythic aspects of existence.

Jack

Here is a tough one for you. Yes there are many different conceptions of God but is there one correct one that is already known? This is an excerpt of a letter Simone Weil wrote shortly before her death explaining her thoughts when she was fourteen:

"I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth."

Does conscious humanity exist where truth surpasses opinions? Is there a transcendent level of understanding where a person knows their relationship to our source and the purpose of our universe and Man within it? Is Man destined to continue the battle of opinions until becoming extinct or do some evolve to become part of conscious humanity?

I don't think gods are an idea. Just like atoms are no idea either.

Nick_A wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 11:33 am Jack

Here is a tough one for you. Yes there are many different conceptions of God but is there one correct one that is already known? This is an excerpt of a letter Simone Weil wrote shortly before her death explaining her thoughts when she was fourteen:

"I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth."

Does conscious humanity exist where truth surpasses opinions? Is there a transcendent level of understanding where a person knows their relationship to our source and the purpose of our universe and Man within it? Is Man destined to continue the battle of opinions until becoming extinct or do some evolve to become part of conscious humanity?

Yes, the question is tough but it is important in the sense of trying to understand what underlying source of intelligence exists in evolution, and whether there is one. This is partly connected to the cosmological anthropic principle, which I find to be one of the most convincing arguments for God's existence. Many view the idea of the development of consciousness as emergent, but there is still the question of to what extent is chance the only factor. In 'The New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God', Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker suggest,
' the fact that the universe had a very definite beginning, as did the chemical elements, creates severe difficulties on several different levels for anyone, including Dawkins, who wants to displace God with chance. To begin with, while God can create instantaneously, or over a period of time He wishes, chance needs a long, long long time to accomplish even the most meager results. The reason for this is that intelligent beings can choose intelligently. Chance is the complete absence of intelligence, choice, and, we should add, causal power.

This passage may capture the inherent issue of the existence of God argument because, on one hand, it is likely that evolution was a slow process, there is still the process of intelligence underlying it. It could be asked why did consciousness or intelligence develop at all? So, there an argument for intelligence or some higher consciousness behind the scenes of manifest reality and nature, or within the process of "natural selection'.

Also, within the development of religion, as well as philosophy and science there is the intelligence of consciousness to understand it all. In this sense, the historical evolution of human understanding does seem related to an underlying purpose in evolution.

Of course, one problem has been the conflicts over different worldviews, with imperialist attempts to rank certain religious perspectives or worldviews as superior. In that sense, the idea within the theosophy movement is the truth underlying all religions. Also, theosophy is not opposed to science, but sees the search for truth between religion and science as complementary. Of course, it still involves the issue of the reality called God.

It may be that the understanding of the nature of the reality often referred to as 'God" has some basic aspects which are similar in the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha, even though Buddhism does not argue for theism exactly. That is where the question of what is meant by the concept of God may become critical..

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 1:40 pm I don't think gods are an idea. Just like atoms are no idea either.

Of course, it is fair enough to believe that God exists like atoms. The only trouble is that atoms can be observed. Explaining the existence of God, as the concept, underlying reality is much harder because it questionable. This makes it much harder to formulate as a philosophical explanation. Atheists claim that the idea of the supernatural is nonsense. I am not convinced by there arguments fully but it does make the issue of God' existence one of the hardest problems of philosophy. There is no 'proof' either way, and that is where it becomes a choice of interpretations. It is likely that the clash between theism, atheism, agnosticism and other possibilities will always exist in the world.

Well, truly elementary particles can't be observed either. And it depends what you call proof. If you consider a dream in which they show themselves as proof then they exist. Maybe it's hard for them to contact us. But in principle they could, say by means of hidden variables of quantum mechanics.

And what if you consider the existence of the universe as proof? Dawkins said he's 98.9% sure that gods don't exist but that's a ridiculous claim.

stevie wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 1:33 am Why spend even one thought?

That is only speculation, rather than argument for or against God and what that means.

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:07 pm Well, truly elementary particles can't be observed either. And it depends what you call proof. If you consider a dream in which they show themselves as proof then they exist. Maybe it's hard for them to contact us. But in principle they could, say by means of hidden variables of quantum mechanics.

And what if you consider the existence of the universe as proof? Dawkins said he's 98.9% sure that gods don't exist but that's a ridiculous claim.

It may be that quantum physics throws much more of what is considered solid reality into question, unlike the mechanistic picture of Newton's physics. Relativity posits the importance of the observer in the process. It definitely can be argued that reality is the proof of God, including the argument for design. The issue may be where science fits into the picture, although many physicists such as Fritjof Capra and Paul Davies have argued for such an interpretation in their understanding of the 'new physics'. Stephen Hawking saw differently, adopting an atheistic perspective and there are ambiguities in how Einstein saw this.

However, looking to sciences may be part of the issue but not entirely. Someone like Einstein was an expert in physics, but that doesn't mean he was an expert in philosophy itself. Theology may be considered another angle, but that is a field which is answered in reference to the belief in God as a starting point. That is why it remains an ongoing philosophical problem.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:24 pm

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:07 pm Well, truly elementary particles can't be observed either. And it depends what you call proof. If you consider a dream in which they show themselves as proof then they exist. Maybe it's hard for them to contact us. But in principle they could, say by means of hidden variables of quantum mechanics.

And what if you consider the existence of the universe as proof? Dawkins said he's 98.9% sure that gods don't exist but that's a ridiculous claim.

It may be that quantum physics throws much more of what is considered solid reality into question, unlike the mechanistic picture of Newton's physics. Relativity posits the importance of the observer in the process. It definitely can be argued that reality is the proof of God, including the argument for design. The issue may be where science fits into the picture, although many physicists such as Fritjof Capra and Paul Davies have argued for such an interpretation in their understanding of the 'new physics'. Stephen Hawking saw differently, adopting an atheistic perspective and there are ambiguities in how Einstein saw this.

However, looking to sciences may be part of the issue but not entirely. Someone like Einstein was an expert in physics, but that doesn't mean he was an expert in philosophy itself. Theology may be considered another angle, but that is a field which is answered in reference to the belief in God as a starting point. That is why it remains an ongoing philosophical problem.

Not sure what you mean by the ongoing philosophical problem. How can gods be a philosophical problem? You mean what counts as proof, how you can know their nature, the relation with ethics, or...?

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:19 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:24 pm

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:07 pm Well, truly elementary particles can't be observed either. And it depends what you call proof. If you consider a dream in which they show themselves as proof then they exist. Maybe it's hard for them to contact us. But in principle they could, say by means of hidden variables of quantum mechanics.

And what if you consider the existence of the universe as proof? Dawkins said he's 98.9% sure that gods don't exist but that's a ridiculous claim.

It may be that quantum physics throws much more of what is considered solid reality into question, unlike the mechanistic picture of Newton's physics. Relativity posits the importance of the observer in the process. It definitely can be argued that reality is the proof of God, including the argument for design. The issue may be where science fits into the picture, although many physicists such as Fritjof Capra and Paul Davies have argued for such an interpretation in their understanding of the 'new physics'. Stephen Hawking saw differently, adopting an atheistic perspective and there are ambiguities in how Einstein saw this.

However, looking to sciences may be part of the issue but not entirely. Someone like Einstein was an expert in physics, but that doesn't mean he was an expert in philosophy itself. Theology may be considered another angle, but that is a field which is answered in reference to the belief in God as a starting point. That is why it remains an ongoing philosophical problem.

Not sure what you mean by the ongoing philosophical problem. How can gods be a philosophical problem? You mean what counts as proof, how you can know their nature, the relation with ethics, or...?

Yes, I meant that the idea of gods being a philosophical problem in terms of explanation as opposed to the gods being a problem to themselves philosophically. However, I am aware that you use the tems gods as opposed to the idea of one which is more usual. So, I am interested in what sense do you mean gods? Is it like the way the Hindus or pagans see god? Or is like the way van Daniken and Graham Hamcock saw them as beings who existed in ancient times, who descended and reproduced with gods giving birth to human beings? There is often the idea of evolution as an alternative to the literal account in Genesis. But, other alternatives may be seen. So, I am interested in what you mean by gods because it is more common in mythology than philosophy discussions.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:36 pm

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:19 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:24 pm

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:07 pm Well, truly elementary particles can't be observed either. And it depends what you call proof. If you consider a dream in which they show themselves as proof then they exist. Maybe it's hard for them to contact us. But in principle they could, say by means of hidden variables of quantum mechanics.

And what if you consider the existence of the universe as proof? Dawkins said he's 98.9% sure that gods don't exist but that's a ridiculous claim.

It may be that quantum physics throws much more of what is considered solid reality into question, unlike the mechanistic picture of Newton's physics. Relativity posits the importance of the observer in the process. It definitely can be argued that reality is the proof of God, including the argument for design. The issue may be where science fits into the picture, although many physicists such as Fritjof Capra and Paul Davies have argued for such an interpretation in their understanding of the 'new physics'. Stephen Hawking saw differently, adopting an atheistic perspective and there are ambiguities in how Einstein saw this.

However, looking to sciences may be part of the issue but not entirely. Someone like Einstein was an expert in physics, but that doesn't mean he was an expert in philosophy itself. Theology may be considered another angle, but that is a field which is answered in reference to the belief in God as a starting point. That is why it remains an ongoing philosophical problem.

Not sure what you mean by the ongoing philosophical problem. How can gods be a philosophical problem? You mean what counts as proof, how you can know their nature, the relation with ethics, or...?

Yes, I meant that the idea of gods being a philosophical problem in terms of explanation as opposed to the gods being a problem to themselves philosophically. However, I am aware that you use the tems gods as opposed to the idea of one which is more usual. So, I am interested in what sense do you mean gods? Is it like the way the Hindus or pagans see god? Or is like the way van Daniken and Graham Hamcock saw them as beings who existed in ancient times, who descended and reproduced with gods giving birth to human beings? There is often the idea of evolution as an alternative to the literal account in Genesis. But, other alternatives may be seen. So, I am interested in what you mean by gods because it is more common in mythology than philosophy discussions.

Well, I think my idea is pretty non-standard. I think gods created the basics of the universe to evolve in a copy of heaven wrt to the living gods in the eternal heavens. I think every creature in the universe has a god version in heaven. The gods had their reasons to create the divine stuff of the universe and made it eternal with recurring big bangs, one after another. No beginning no end, but an infinite serie of beginnings at a time zero. They became aware of what the homonid gods had done in the happy time all the gods were busy trying to create and develop the heavenly stuff to create the universe and relieve the heavens from an existential void that came over it. In their eagerness to find it they forgot to keep an eye on the people gods, who were always already acting a bit odd... I saw it in a dream and write a short story about it.

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 4:56 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:36 pm

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:19 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:24 pm

It may be that quantum physics throws much more of what is considered solid reality into question, unlike the mechanistic picture of Newton's physics. Relativity posits the importance of the observer in the process. It definitely can be argued that reality is the proof of God, including the argument for design. The issue may be where science fits into the picture, although many physicists such as Fritjof Capra and Paul Davies have argued for such an interpretation in their understanding of the 'new physics'. Stephen Hawking saw differently, adopting an atheistic perspective and there are ambiguities in how Einstein saw this.

However, looking to sciences may be part of the issue but not entirely. Someone like Einstein was an expert in physics, but that doesn't mean he was an expert in philosophy itself. Theology may be considered another angle, but that is a field which is answered in reference to the belief in God as a starting point. That is why it remains an ongoing philosophical problem.

Not sure what you mean by the ongoing philosophical problem. How can gods be a philosophical problem? You mean what counts as proof, how you can know their nature, the relation with ethics, or...?

Yes, I meant that the idea of gods being a philosophical problem in terms of explanation as opposed to the gods being a problem to themselves philosophically. However, I am aware that you use the tems gods as opposed to the idea of one which is more usual. So, I am interested in what sense do you mean gods? Is it like the way the Hindus or pagans see god? Or is like the way van Daniken and Graham Hamcock saw them as beings who existed in ancient times, who descended and reproduced with gods giving birth to human beings? There is often the idea of evolution as an alternative to the literal account in Genesis. But, other alternatives may be seen. So, I am interested in what you mean by gods because it is more common in mythology than philosophy discussions.

Well, I think my idea is pretty non-standard. I think gods created the basics of the universe to evolve in a copy of heaven wrt to the living gods in the eternal heavens. I think every creature in the universe has a god version in heaven. The gods had their reasons to create the divine stuff of the universe and made it eternal with recurring big bangs, one after another. No beginning no end, but an infinite serie of beginnings at a time zero. They became aware of what the homonid gods had done in the happy time all the gods were busy trying to create and develop the heavenly stuff to create the universe and relieve the heavens from an existential void that came over it. In their eagerness to find it they forgot to keep an eye on the people gods, who were always already acting a bit odd... I saw it in a dream and write a short story about it.

So, do you think that dreams are of particular significance? Some people seem to regard them as more important than others. It appears that they were valued more by ancient people. In our time, rationality is seen as extremely important. Carl Jung places particular significance on them. They may be missed in philosophy as a source of imagination. My own view is that they are of value, although it is probably important to balance the ideas of the imagination with reason in philosophy. They may definitely be important for creating fiction, which can look at symbolic aspects of existence in a different way to the logic of philosophy arguments, looking more from a metaphorical or mythic perspective.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:09 pm

stevie wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 1:33 am Why spend even one thought?

That is only speculation, rather than argument for or against God and what that means.

Oh dear. A question is a question and cannot be a speculation. However your musings about your "god" fantasy are specultions.

stevie wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 2:22 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 2:09 pm

stevie wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 1:33 am Why spend even one thought?

That is only speculation, rather than argument for or against God and what that means.

Oh dear. A question is a question and cannot be a speculation. However your musings about your "god" fantasy are specultions.

Musings about a fantasy are speculations. That must make them true again. How do you know it are speculations?

"So, do you think that dreams are of particular significance?"

Well, they are more than the scientific approach says them to be, I'm sure. They are not just a means to process stuff, reinforce memory, or whatever (of course memory is reinforced during dreaming and even new memories are made, but we can't remember most dreams). I read about a natural tribe. One of the members dreamt the small village was on fire and the whole tribe moved away because of it, which in western thought is ridiculous.