What do we need a deity for? (Introduction)
Under Science vs. Religion, Matt has talked about his fleeting feeling of oneness with the universe: "I want to continue to believe that I'm incapable of religious experience, but its entirely possible to me that the broad bursts of energy I feel when I meditate or write sections of song or novel are precisely this....But what is a religious experience without religion?"-Under "Asking of the Designer..." whateverist says that while "you can reasonably embrace both science and a deity, what do we need the deity for?"-Although whateverist's question is in a different context, in some ways it answers Matt's question. As I see it, belief in God is not in the least necessary for us to experience oneness with all living things, or wonderment at the natural beauty of the world, or at the achievements of humans, especially in the arts ... of which for me music ranks supreme ... but also in technology and science. In fact it always annoys me when religious people assume that they have a monopoly on such feelings, as they sometimes also do when it comes to ethics and a social conscience. I have known wonderfully kind and loving believers and non-believers. Buddhist philosophy (perhaps one should say philosophies) manages to focus on non-materialistic values without any recourse to deities, and the precepts of humanism are as moral as those of any religion.-But there are other answers to whateverist's question. I don't think there is any doubt that belief in God brings enormous comfort to people in times of need, and it brings hope to people who have no other source for hope. That is a value in itself, although it would seem hollow if there were no grounds for such belief. So I would look again at the context of science and religion and say that not only are they perfectly compatible, but that there are things that science can't explain and MAYBE ... just maybe ... religion can.-I'm going over old ground here, but I'm trying to draw threads together. Science cannot explain the origin of life (see "Abiogenesis") or the origin of those physical mechanisms that have enabled the earliest forms of life to evolve as they have done. Science cannot explain the mystic experiences that many of us have had, in Matt's case perhaps through meditation, in my own through music and literature, or quite simply out of the blue for no particular reason. Science cannot explain the mystery of consciousness. And science cannot explain a range of psychic experiences reported by humans down through the centuries. One can, of course, assume ... as atheists do ... that one day a material explanation will be found for everything. But that assumption is not based on science, it is based on faith in science, which in turn is based on faith that all things actually have a material explanation. -And so even if some of us don't feel the need for a deity in our personal lives, the question still arises as to whether we can be sure that all the unsolved mysteries of life and the universe are solvable in material terms. If not, then we must allow for the possibility of a form of life completely beyond the range of our cognition.
What do we need a deity for?
by broken_cynic 
, Tuesday, August 02, 2011, 04:51 (4841 days ago) @ dhw
Matt pointed me to this page and noted that this crew was currently without an atheist perspective. I'm not sure how often I'll jump in as I've been busy as all hell lately, but I can't resist a good challenge. I'll try to get back and flesh out my response here (and on the abiogenesis page) but for now I'll keep it very short and simple:-When you say "Science cannot explain X" it might be more fair and correct to say "science has not yet explained X." Note: there is no inherent assumption that science will explain X in the future, only a more precise phrasing of the current state of things. You have no more grounds to assume that it will not (cannot) happen than I have to assume that it will.-Atheism and science are not quite as tightly linked as seems (on first glance) to be presumed here, but they do share the preference to not assume anything for which evidence is not available.
What do we need a deity for?
Broken_cynic: Matt pointed me to this page and noted that this crew was currently without an atheist perspective. I'm not sure how often I'll jump in as I've been busy as all hell lately, but I can't resist a good challenge. -First of all, a warm welcome to the forum ... and my thanks to Matt for bringing you along. We are indeed without an atheist perspective, although George Jelliss occasionally drops in to revive happy memories.-Broken_cynic: When you say "Science cannot explain X" it might be more fair and correct to say "science has not yet explained X." Note: there is no inherent assumption that science will explain X in the future, only a more precise phrasing of the current state of things. You have no more grounds to assume that it will not (cannot) happen than I have to assume that it will.-The use of the word "yet" certainly implies that the action will be performed in the future. When my wife asks if I've mended the bathroom lock, my reply will be that I haven't done it YET, which is meant to reassure her that it will be done! (Alas, she is difficult to fool.) However, you are right. My "cannot" is at best misleading, since it could imply that science doesn't have the capability and hence will never be able to explain X. That is not what I meant (I do not assume that it will not happen), and so we need a neutral formulation, which I think we can get by omitting your "yet". So how about a revised version: "Science has not explained X"? Perhaps we should add a parenthesis: (and may or may not be able to do so in the future). Broken_cynic: Atheism and science are not quite as tightly linked as seems (on first glance) to be presumed here, but they do share the preference to not assume anything for which evidence is not available. I don't think there is a link between atheism and science at all. As I see it, science has not come up with anything that either supports or contradicts theism or atheism. However, with regard to assumptions, I disagree profoundly with your statement. This is where abiogenesis offers us a prime example, so I'll look forward to your comments on the subject. Atheism categorically dismisses the idea of a designer. If conscious design is out of the question, what alternative do you offer to the assumption that life (i.e. its origin) is the product of chance? There is no scientific evidence for the abiogenesis hypothesis, and so your final statement in my view applies to agnosticism but emphatically not to atheism.
What do we need a deity for?
by broken_cynic , Tuesday, August 02, 2011, 16:37 (4841 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: So how about a revised version: "Science has not explained X"? Perhaps we should add a parenthesis: (and may or may not be able to do so in the future).-Your revised version is indeed better. 'Yet' was an over-correction on my part. I think the parenthesis can remain unstated most of the time. =)-I would not go so far as to say that there is no link at all between atheism and science. Philosophically that may be true, but in the real world, among real, live atheists there is a strong correlation between the two. (Not implying causation. ;) ) -I will stand by my assertion that atheism assumes nothing. This is going to seem to be a detour and may well be worthy of a stand-alone post, but here's the short version: -There is a common mis-perception that agnosticism is the middle ground between theism and atheism. That's misleading. Theism is indeed the opposite of atheism, belief in god(s)/supernatural versus the lack thereof. However, agnosticism is not about belief at all. It is about knowledge. Anyone who claims to know that there is or is not a god is not agnostic, but anyone (most atheists included) who does not claim certain knowledge on the subject is agnostic. Technically I'm an agnostic atheist: I do not believe in any god(s), but I am not going to tell you I know for certain that nothing of the sort exists.-PZ Myers would be an example of a hard (Gnostic? =) ) atheist. In practice* I tend to side with him almost 100%, but philosophically I have to admit that I am at least a bit agnostic. I agree with him that the very idea of the supernatural is incoherent, but I will not claim certainty on the question of whether we will ever encounter anything that fulfills some of our ideas of godhood. -*I am only agnostic with regard to the general concept. I am entirely willing to state and defend the knowledge specific gods (say, Thor, FSM and Yahweh) do not exist. Their human origins are clear and their mythologies claim actions with specific, observable results that don't exist.
What do we need a deity for?
Broken_cynic: I would not go so far as to say that there is no link at all between atheism and science. Philosophically that may be true, but in the real world, among real, live atheists there is a strong correlation between the two. (Not implying causation. ;) ) By that I meant that science gave no support to atheism (or to theism). Most of the real, live atheists I know seem to think that science does support them, but perhaps that is due to the fact that they believe in a materialistic world, and science deals with the materialistic world. However, science does not claim that the world is confined to materials. It simply gets on with the job of examining the materials. It's individual scientists who draw their subjective conclusions from the results, and some of them are actually theists. -Broken-cynic: There is a common mis-perception that agnosticism is the middle ground between theism and atheism. That's misleading. Theism is indeed the opposite of atheism, belief in god(s)/supernatural versus the lack thereof. However, agnosticism is not about belief at all. It is about knowledge. Anyone who claims to know that there is or is not a god is not agnostic, but anyone (most atheists included) who does not claim certain knowledge on the subject is agnostic. Technically I'm an agnostic atheist: I do not believe in any god(s), but I am not going to tell you I know for certain that nothing of the sort exists.-Unfortunately we are going over heavily trodden ground here, so I will keep this short. Huxley's coinage meant the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not. Since then, epistemology has taught us that such a thing is indeed impossible to KNOW, which theoretically makes us all agnostics. However, the term has gradually come to take on a slightly different meaning, which is that of non-belief: i.e. an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in God. It's a departure from the etymology and from Huxley, and is still frowned on by the purists, but I think you will find this is the line now followed by many agnostics, and it is certainly the line followed on this forum. You have rightly said that it is "common", but I would argue that it is now indeed the middle ground and this is no longer a misperception. Broken_cynic: PZ Myers would be an example of a hard (Gnostic? =) ) atheist. In practice* I tend to side with him almost 100%, but philosophically I have to admit that I am at least a bit agnostic. I agree with him that the very idea of the supernatural is incoherent, but I will not claim certainty on the question of whether we will ever encounter anything that fulfills some of our ideas of godhood. -Only a fundamentalist would claim certainty.-Broken_cynic: I am only agnostic with regard to the general concept. I am entirely willing to state and defend the knowledge specific gods (say, Thor, FSM and Yahweh) do not exist. Their human origins are clear and their mythologies claim actions with specific, observable results that don't exist.-I shan't argue with you, but I suspect that an Orthodox Jew would, since it is so difficult to ascertain how much of the OT relates to historical fact and how much to man-made mythology. Once again, it is dangerous to talk of "knowledge". You do not "know" that the Jewish God does not exist or that, say, Joshua did not exist, or that the Jewish God did not help Joshua to settle the land of Canaan. There are, of course, limits to one's open-mindedness, although these are subjective. I would not hesitate to agree with you about Thor and the FSM!
What do we need a deity for?
by broken_cynic , Wednesday, August 03, 2011, 23:06 (4839 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: "Most of the real, live atheists I know seem to think that science does support them, but perhaps that is due to the fact that they believe in a materialistic world, and science deals with the materialistic world. However, science does not claim that the world is confined to materials." -I would agree that science does not support atheism in the sense of 'proving it right.' However, it offers indirect support in the sense that it has chewed over vast amounts of territory where people believed in non-material causes and shown no need for them. So far it hasn't yet uncovered a case where a non-material cause was necessary. I would suggest that we're long past the point where science is considering far more questions brought up by earlier scientific exploration than it is questions that existed prior to general acceptance of the scientific method. (In other words, we've answered most of the pre-existing questions.) There will always be more questions (and some of the big ones will remain unanswered for a long time, if we ever find answers at all.) How long do we have to go on eliminating the need for non-material causes before you stop proposing them? Is there a point at which you concede the game or is this a matter of perpetual-motion goalposts?-> "You have rightly said that it is "common", but I would argue that it is now indeed the middle ground and this is no longer a misperception."-Your forum, your terms I suppose, but in that case I'm really confused about the tone around here as to me a gathering of folks who claim the middle ground ought to be sceptical of both sides equally and it seems 'sceptical' in the same sense that creationists are 'sceptical' ...a very loaded sense. The fact that some folks around here seem to find creationist arguments reasonable and compelling makes me leery.-> "Only a fundamentalist would claim certainty."-Do you know for certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Why or why not?-> "Once again, it is dangerous to talk of "knowledge". You do not "know" that the Jewish God does not exist or that, say, Joshua did not exist, or that the Jewish God did not help Joshua to settle the land of Canaan." I do indeed know that the Jewish god (as described in the Torah) does not exist. For the very same reasons you concede that Thor and FSM (and I will presume, Santa Claus) don't exist. In your mind, what makes the story of Yahweh (and others I presume?) distinctly untouchable?
What do we need a deity for?
KENT: I would agree that science does not support atheism in the sense of 'proving it right.' However, it offers indirect support in the sense that it has chewed over vast amounts of territory where people believed in non-material causes and shown no need for them. So far it hasn't yet uncovered a case where a non-material cause was necessary. [...] There will always be more questions (and some of the big ones will remain unanswered for a long time, if we ever find answers at all.) How long do we have to go on eliminating the need for non-material causes before you stop proposing them? Is there a point at which you concede the game or is this a matter of perpetual-motion goalposts?-Your parenthesis provides the answer to your own questions: the big ones that will remain unanswered for a long time, if we ever find answers at all, are the ones that underlie this whole discussion: e.g. the origin of life; the mystery of consciousness; psychic and mystic experiences. You believe they have material causes, though this may never be proven (= "if we ever find answers at all"). David, our resident panentheist, believes that they go back to a universal intelligence. I propose nothing. I will "concede the game" when one side or the other provides answers to the "big ones", and till then I'll sit on my fence. Dhw (on the neither-believe-nor-disbelieve definition of agnosticism): You have rightly said that it is "common", but I would argue that it is now indeed the middle ground and this is no longer a misperception.-KENT: Your forum, your terms I suppose, but in that case I'm really confused about the tone around here as to me a gathering of folks who claim the middle ground ought to be sceptical of both sides equally and it seems 'sceptical' in the same sense that creationists are 'sceptical' ...a very loaded sense. The fact that some folks around here seem to find creationist arguments reasonable and compelling makes me leery.-This is an open forum, on which we welcome the views of theists and atheists and agnostics. I've made it plain that I personally am as sceptical of the theist faith in a "supernatural" power as I am of the atheist faith in chance. Since George Jelliss's heyday, however, we have attracted more theists and agnostics than atheists, which is why I'm delighted that Matt has introduced you! However, you cannot expect even those who occupy the middle ground simply to cave in when you claim that although we don't know and may never know the answers to the big questions, you yourself believe that they will prove to be material.-Dhw: Once again, it is dangerous to talk of "knowledge". You do not "know" that the Jewish God does not exist or that, say, Joshua did not exist, or that the Jewish God did not help Joshua to settle the land of Canaan.-KENT: I do indeed know that the Jewish god (as described in the Torah) does not exist. For the very same reasons you concede that Thor and FSM (and I will presume, Santa Claus) don't exist. In your mind, what makes the story of Yahweh (and others I presume?) distinctly untouchable?-I have not said that the story of Yahweh is untouchable. Yahweh, as you say, is simply the Jewish name for God (call him/her/it Jehovah, or Allah, or a UI, or whatever you like), and although I do not believe in him/her/it, unlike yourself I do not KNOW whether some such God exists or not. And since I have no answers of my own to the big questions, I respect those who think they have, so long as they show the same respect to others who do not share their beliefs.
What do we need a deity for?
by broken_cynic , Friday, August 05, 2011, 00:32 (4838 days ago) @ dhw
Well, so long as you insist on a (false) dichotomy of being unable to judge anything in the absence of complete knowledge, you will die on that fence. I'm sure that prospect doesn't bother you, but I'm not at all sure I see the value in it, for you or anyone else. -> However, you cannot expect even those who occupy the middle ground simply to cave in when you claim that although we don't know and may never know the answers to the big questions, you yourself believe that they will prove to be material.-I have neither expected, nor claimed anything of the sort. I realize I'm going about answering your posts from today a bit backwards, but eventually I'm going to get tired of answering to this damn straw man. I can see why atheists might not stick around here if you insist on arguing not with them, but a set of beliefs you assign to them.->I have not said that the story of Yahweh is untouchable. Yahweh, as you say, is simply the Jewish name for God (call him/her/it Jehovah, or Allah, or a UI, or whatever you like), and although I do not believe in him/her/it, unlike yourself I do not KNOW whether some such God exists or not. -Why are you comfortable saying you know that about Thor and FSM, but not Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/etc...? What is the difference you see? -> And since I have no answers of my own to the big questions, I respect those who think they have, so long as they show the same respect to others who do not share their beliefs.-Agreed, but I don't necessarily extend that respect to their beliefs.
What do we need a deity for?
KENT: Well, so long as you insist on a (false) dichotomy of being unable to judge anything in the absence of complete knowledge, you will die on that fence. I'm sure that prospect doesn't bother you, but I'm not at all sure I see the value in it, for you or anyone else. You have emphasized "anything", which is an astonishing presumption on your part. I have explained why I refuse to take on trust the chance explanation of the origin of life, and I remain open-minded on matters relating to the mysteries of consciousness and psychic/mystic phenomena. In the context of belief or disbelief in God, it is virtually certain that I will die on my fence. Value is not an issue. I'm not at all sure that I see any value for you or anyone else in your contemptuous rejection of all deities as "utterly ridiculous". (I'm amazed that anyone actually knows about all the deities. It must have taken you years of research.) For the record, I make judgements all the time in the absence of complete knowledge. No-one has complete knowledge when judgements are called for ... if they did, there would be no need to make a judgement! I do not believe absolute knowledge of the God issue is possible, and I do not consider that I have sufficient knowledge to make a judgement. I'm surprised that you find that so difficult to accept.-Dhw: However, you cannot expect even those who occupy the middle ground simply to cave in when you claim that although we don't know and may never know the answers to the big questions, you yourself believe that they will prove to be material.-KENT: I have neither expected, nor claimed anything of the sort. I realize I'm going about answering your posts from today a bit backwards, but eventually I'm going to get tired of answering to this damn straw man. I can see why atheists might not stick around here if you insist on arguing not with them, but a set of beliefs you assign to them.-The belief I have assigned to you is that there is a material answer to what you yourself called "the big questions". If that is not what you believe, I apologize, but how else am I to interpret: "Show me the first piece of evidence that there is anything but the material world to be accounted for, and I will reconsider whether perhaps there is some realm which science cannot touch" / "How long do we have to go on eliminating the need for non-material causes before you stop proposing them?" It would be extremely helpful if you would explain what, in this context, you do believe, rather than reiterating what you don't believe. -Dhw: I have not said that the story of Yahweh is untouchable. Yahweh, as you say, is simply the Jewish name for God (call him/her/it Jehovah, or Allah, or a UI, or whatever you like), and although I do not believe in him/her/it, unlike yourself I do not KNOW whether some such God exists or not. KENT: Why are you comfortable saying you know that about Thor and FSM, but not Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/etc...? What is the difference you see? -Henderson's FSM is a parody, just like Russell's teapot. We know its precise origin and its precise purpose, and it has nothing to do with explaining the unsolved mysteries of life and the universe. Thor is a better illustration of your case, since we now know the precise cause of thunder and have no need of what I presume you would call a "supernatural" explanation. It is possible that future generations will discover that chance is capable of sparking off the infinitely more complex processes that have led to life, consciousness etc. But I'm not convinced that they will do so, because I'm not convinced that chance really is capable of such a colossal scientific achievement. For this and other reasons already explained, I leave open the option of an alternative explanation, namely a force that lies beyond our current concepts of Nature. Call it God, Yahweh...whatever you like (but forget the attributes imposed on it by the various religions ... that is a different matter). Are you genuinely unable to see the difference, or are you kidding me?
What do we need a deity for?
by broken_cynic , Tuesday, August 09, 2011, 23:53 (4833 days ago) @ dhw
Kent: Well, so long as you insist on a (false) dichotomy of being unable to judge anything in the absence of complete knowledge, you will die on that fence. -> dhw: You have emphasized "anything", which is an astonishing presumption on your part. I have explained why I refuse to take on trust the chance explanation of the origin of life, and I remain open-minded on matters relating to the mysteries of consciousness and psychic/mystic phenomena. ... I'm not at all sure that I see any value for you or anyone else in your contemptuous rejection of all deities as "utterly ridiculous". -I'm sorry, that was poorly and antagonistically phrased on my part. I am very much in favor of (initially) approaching any and all ideas with an open mind. My frustration comes in when it seems that you want to ask of science/rationalism a complete and airtight description of the entire universe from start to finish before you will accept that its account carries more weight than that of unsubstantiated stories which just happen to parallel in nearly all respects, stories we know for certain were made up. -> I'm amazed that anyone actually knows about all the deities. It must have taken you years of research. -I don't need to know about all of the deities humans have ever described to dismiss them as a class. Do you need to know the back story of every character in the DC or Marvel (comics) universes before you can confidently describe the entire group as fictional characters?-> For the record, I make judgments all the time in the absence of complete knowledge. No-one has complete knowledge when judgments are called for - if they did, there would be no need to make a judgment! I do not believe absolute knowledge of the God issue is possible, and I do not consider that I have sufficient knowledge to make a judgment. I'm surprised that you find that so difficult to accept.-I can accept that you do not have sufficient knowledge to satisfy your own threshold of certainty. The only part I have trouble accepting is as above, when you seem to give equal weight to sober analysis of the evidence on one hand and slightly re-worked versions of Bronze Age myths on the other. If neither convinces, that's fine, but they are still not equal. -> The belief I have assigned to you is that there is a material answer to what you yourself called "the big questions". If that is not what you believe, I apologize... It would be extremely helpful if you would explain what, in this context, you do believe, rather than reiterating what you don't believe. -When I try to synthesize all of the branches of our conversation under the abiogenesis topic I will address this more thoroughly (and positively,) but there is a difference between 'believing that there is a material answer to everything' and simply operating in a world where there has never been evidence of a non-material answer for any question whatever outside the realm of stories (from fairy tales to religions.) To say I 'believe in' material answers makes no more sense than to say that I 'believe in' sources of engine problems other than gremlins, or of relationship issues other than fairy folk or of sour milk other than elves. I don't need to hold an explicit belief in the real world, I live there. You aren't far off the mark on my perspective, it's the insistence on labeling ideas as absolutist, black and white beliefs that makes me keep saying 'No!'->> Kent: Why are you comfortable saying you know that about Thor and FSM, but not Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/etc...? What is the difference you see?-> dhw: But I'm not convinced that they will do so, because I'm not convinced that chance really is capable of such a colossal scientific achievement.-Huh? Anthropomorphize much?-> dhw: I leave open the option of an alternative explanation, namely a force that lies beyond our current concepts of Nature. Call it God, Yahweh.whatever you like (but forget the attributes imposed on it by the various religions - that is a different matter). Are you genuinely unable to see the difference, or are you kidding me?-The only difference I see is an insignificant one: that the origins of some of them are far enough in the past that it is not entirely clear at this point whether the original authors of the stories were intentionally pulling the wool over people's eyes or sincerely looking to explain the world as they saw it. Maybe it would make more sense if instead of comparing Yahweh to a clear parody like FSM I instead compared him to Xenu?-You haven't answered my question about what difference you see between the ancient stories and the recent ones, only described the gaps that you think some gods or other might still possibly be found hiding in. -Why is a story made up to explain things we don't yet fully understand worth of veneration, or even of respect? I love a good story, particularly ones that play with mythos (Neil Gaiman and Charles de Lint are favorite authors of mine,) but a huge part of the pleasure of a good story is that it is definitively Not Real and Not To Be Taken Seriously. Stories work their own sort of mundane magic and stories can teach, but they are still inherently an escape from the real world.
What do we need a deity for?
KENT (b_c): My frustration comes in when it seems that you want to ask of science/rationalism a complete and airtight description of the entire universe from start to finish before you will accept that its account carries more weight than that of unsubstantiated stories which just happen to parallel in nearly all respects, stories we know for certain were made up. This whole post is depressing. Only a madman would expect a complete and airtight description (I plead sanity), and I have not at any time offered any defence of or given any weight to "unsubstantiated stories" of creation. The choice for me, as I have emphasized repeatedly, lies between chance and design, and what we do know of the birth of the universe and the origin of life can be made to fit in with either theory.You are firing arrows at a target of your own making.-I had thought we'd moved onto a more rational level through my post of 9 August at 15.59 in reply to your (far more constructive) one of 9 August at 01.05 under "Abiogenesis". I'm wondering if perhaps you've missed this, since it makes most of your post here irrelevant. I'll repeat it now in the hope that it will put an end to this line of argument, and I would suggest in any case that we transfer this discussion here to avoid further overcrowding on the "Abiogenesis" thread. I'll highlight one or two passages, in the hope of getting the message home!-******-"This post is a big step forward in our understanding of each other. Your main beef is clearly not against God (more in a moment) but against the "designers that the religions posit". We can't discuss them all ... that would fill several books ... but I share your scepticism. However, most religions centre on this idea of an intelligent being (or beings), not necessarily in an outer universe, but perhaps even consciously within this universe ... in my earlier post I described it as some unknown form of energy. The religions personify it and load it with all kinds of attributes which you and I object to. The key here, though, is consciousness (or intelligence), and you say it isn't out of the question.-That is precisely the discussion that you and I are having ... but it can't be about definition. No-one can define something they haven't a clue about, and none of us has a clue about the forces that have brought life out of non-life. We (you and I) can only say what we DON'T think it is (e.g. a loving father who will beat the hell out of us if we don't love him back). The situation as I see it is that we are here and something must have put us here. That something may be unconscious chance, or it may be some unknown form of consciousness, which humans reduce to forms and figures they can understand. The hypothetical unknown form is where I put my full stop, because I can go no further (though that doesn't stop me speculating!) Since the alternatives are equally irrational and, I think, equally unprovable, I sit on what David calls my picket fence.-KENT: From a scientific perspective, no hypothesis that doesn't contradict the data is off the table until one has enough evidence to cobble together a good theory (and even then, it remains happily vulnerable to an improved theory with greater accuracy and predictive power.)-Once again, we are in agreement. No-one, in my view, has yet cobbled together a convincing theory: you lean heavily towards chance, while David leans heavily towards design, and I sit but do not lean. From a scientific perspective there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate either theory, but under "What do we need a deity for?" Matt has rightly pointed out that the scientific perspective is not the only one."-************-A few comments, however, on your latest post:-KENT: I don't need to know about all of the deities humans have ever described to dismiss them as a class. Do you need to know the back story of every character in the DC or Marvel (comics) universes before you can confidently describe the entire group as fictional characters?-What is this obsession with stories and characters? What, for instance, are the stories associated with pantheism, or panentheism, or the various modern forms of deism?-KENT: You seem to give equal weight to sober analysis of the evidence on one hand and slightly re-worked versions of Bronze Age myths on the other.-Please find me a quote in which I give weight to any version of Bronze Age myths.-KENT: It's the insistence on labeling ideas as absolutist, black and white beliefs that makes me keep saying 'No!'-One could scarcely be more black-and-white absolutist than dismissing ALL deities as "utterly ridiculous", and all forms of psychic phenomena as trickery and anyone who thinks otherwise as a fool.-KENT: You haven't answered my question about what difference you see between the ancient stories and the recent ones [...]-You have even quoted me: "a force that lies beyond our current concepts of Nature. Call it God, Yahweh, whatever you like (but forget the attributes imposed on it by the various religions ... that is a different matter)." I'm not arguing about stories (fascinating though they may be), characters, attributes, or even religions. I'm interested in whatever it is that has given you and me life. Full stop.
What do we need a deity for?
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 23:44 (4832 days ago) @ dhw
in my earlier post I described it as some unknown form of energy. The religions personify it and load it with all kinds of attributes which you and I object to. The key here, though, is consciousness (or intelligence), and you say it isn't out of the question.- I pop in to agree here. The UI is some energy form, and the religious attributes are pie in the shy.
What do we need a deity for?
by broken_cynic , Thursday, August 11, 2011, 21:34 (4831 days ago) @ dhw
I'm afraid I'm going to fragment this conversation a bit more, as I'm going to post this separately before I get to the individual points later in the message.->> KENT (b_c): My frustration comes in when it seems that you want to ask of science/rationalism a complete and airtight description of the entire universe from start to finish before you will accept that its account carries more weight than that of unsubstantiated stories which just happen to parallel in nearly all respects, stories we know for certain were made up.-> dhw: This whole post is depressing. Only a madman would expect a complete and airtight description (I plead sanity), and I have not at any time offered any defence of or given any weight to "unsubstantiated stories" of creation. The choice for me, as I have emphasized repeatedly, lies between chance and design, and what we do know of the birth of the universe and the origin of life can be made to fit in with either theory.You are firing arrows at a target of your own making.-I re-read both your words and mine several times, wavering back and forth on whether or not I owed you an apology for creating another straw man. I came to the conclusion that I stand by what I intended to communicate, but that I exaggerated/generalized for effect and that probably wasn't appropriate in a discussion where we are trying to be more precise with our words and definitions. So, here is my attempt at a less overblown and provocative re-phrase:-You seem to accept that science has been successful at developing and continuing to refine a working model of the universe in many areas, including a number that until relatively recently were widely expected to long (if not forever) remain outside the scope of human knowledge. Your acceptance of this is so basic that much of your overall take on the world is apparently built upon it. You also seem to agree with me that no support has been offered for the specific/concrete claims in any religion we are aware of. My frustration comes in when you approach an area where our knowledge is currently much more limited and you are willing to dismiss all that you will otherwise acknowledge about whether it is science or 'random stabs in the dark as to what might be' (cranes or skyhooks) which have successfully provided us with working knowledge of the universe to date and to treat the two approaches as equally valid. It is for this reason I asked why you give religious claims (perhaps I should just say unevidenced claims) a 'free pass,' as it seems that whenever you compare two positions or potential hypotheses you automatically snap to a 'middle' position that may not always be justified.
What do we need a deity for?
KENT (broken_cynic): You seem to accept that science has been successful at developing and continuing to refine a working model of the universe in many areas, including a number that until relatively recently were widely expected to long (if not forever) remain outside the scope of human knowledge. Your acceptance of this is so basic that much of your overall take on the world is apparently built upon it. You also seem to agree with me that no support has been offered for the specific/concrete claims in any religion we are aware of. -Yes.-KENT: My frustration comes in when you approach an area where our knowledge is currently much more limited and you are willing to dismiss all that you will otherwise acknowledge about whether it is science or 'random stabs in the dark as to what might be' (cranes or skyhooks) which have successfully provided us with working knowledge of the universe to date and to treat the two approaches as equally valid.-The 'random stabs' quote is of course your wording and not mine. What exactly are you claiming I have dismissed or am willing to dismiss? Please be precise. Once again, in slightly more moderate tones, you are setting up straw men and ignoring the fundamental points that I keep repeating ad nauseam: the two approaches are what I would call the theories of chance and design. Yet again I repeat: whatever models science has come up with to date can be made to fit in with either theory. As for the future, if scientists prove that the big bang really happened, that life first emerged from volcanic vents, and that a clever human can create a living creature, it still won't resolve the chance v. design problem. The (extreme) theist position dismisses the chance theory, the (extreme) atheist position dismisses the design theory, and the agnostic position does not dismiss either. Theism (not to be confused with religious teachings), atheism and agnosticism are all perfectly capable of absorbing all the findings of science, because science is almost certainly not equipped to falsify either hypothesis.-KENT: It is for this reason I asked why you give religious claims (perhaps I should just say unevidenced claims) a 'free pass,' as it seems that whenever you compare two positions or potential hypotheses you automatically snap to a 'middle' position that may not always be justified.-What "free pass"? What religious/unevidenced claims? In the post to which you were responding, I reproduced my post of 9 August at 15.59 under "Abiogenesis", highlighting certain points. Here for the third time is one of them, referring to whatever gave us life: "That something may be unconscious chance, or it may be some form of consciousness, which humans reduce to forms and figures they can understand. The hypothetical unknown form is where I put my full stop." Religious/unevidenced claims?-In the post with which I started the "Abiogenesis" thread, and to which I have repeatedly drawn your attention, I wrote: "There is no escaping the fact that any designer must have an intelligence far exceeding ours, so if we can believe in its own spontaneous emergence or its everlasting existence, we can believe anything." Free pass?-You have reverted to your extraordinary habit of generalizing from the particular: "it seems that whenever you compare two positions or potential hypotheses you automatically snap to a 'middle' position..." WHENEVER? I adopt the middle position only if I'm not convinced by either hypothesis (here, chance v. design). In an earlier discussion you wrote: "So long as you insist on a (false) dichotomy of being unable to judge anything in the absence of complete knowledge, you will die on that fence." You then graciously apologized for what had been "poorly and antagonistically phrased", and yet here you go again...-Finally, of course a middle position "may not always be justified"! The more proven facts we know, the less justification there will be for a middle position! However, if there are not enough proven facts to convince me that an explanation for a particular phenomenon is valid, I will remain open-minded. Exactly what middle position of mine do you adjudge to be unjustified, and what are your criteria if they are not the same as mine?
What do we need a deity for?
by broken_cynic , Saturday, August 13, 2011, 01:06 (4830 days ago) @ dhw
I'm not going to respond to all of this at the moment. It is running aground at the same points that the abiogenesis discussion is and I'm not going to keep either line up until I finish and post my own baseline so that you have a better idea where I'm coming from and why some of these sticking points are so significant to me.-I do apologize again for over-generalizing. You may have to continue to call me out on that for a while. It is a bad habit acquired through much argument with people who see the world in entirely black and white terms and who make little effort to follow their arguments through to any kind of conclusion (primarily evangelical christians.) I will make an effort to double check my posts for 'always' and 'never' and the like and make sure that if they are there, that it is really what I intend.-Without getting too deep into it, I may be over-estimating the 'religious' nature of your position. In brief my take is that I don't see any origin for any hypothesis of a higher power/intelligence/energy outside of walking old religious claims back until they conflict as little as possible with what we understand of reality. The only claim of that type that doesn't conflict at all is a pure deist position... which I would have reason to argue with.-With regard to the rest I will simply say that I have indeed read your original abiogenesis post, a number of times over by now, and while you seem convinced that I am ignoring it, to me it simply does not answer the questions I am trying to pose. -I am working on an effort to build my case from the ground up (well, revamping an existing effort which Matt has already seen) rather than just jumping into the arguments already in progress and trying to move the world without a place to put my lever.
What do we need a deity for?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 08, 2011, 21:30 (4834 days ago) @ broken_cynic
Well, so long as you insist on a (false) dichotomy of being unable to judge anything in the absence of complete knowledge, you will die on that fence. I'm sure that prospect doesn't bother you, but I'm not at all sure I see the value in it, for you or anyone else. > -Kind of a common-sense "Practicality" approach. "How do we move forward?" I ask the question, "Why move at all?" In my own case, I agree to a large extent that if life didn't arrive by a creator, than the only recourse is by chance, but belief in such a staggering lottery is precisely why dhw calls this "faith in chance." It is precisely this fence that is one of several that I sit on--however prickly the post is. We need more of the story before I accept the result. -> > However, you cannot expect even those who occupy the middle ground simply to cave in when you claim that although we don't know and may never know the answers to the big questions, you yourself believe that they will prove to be material. > > I have neither expected, nor claimed anything of the sort. I realize I'm going about answering your posts from today a bit backwards, but eventually I'm going to get tired of answering to this damn straw man. I can see why atheists might not stick around here if you insist on arguing not with them, but a set of beliefs you assign to them. > > >I have not said that the story of Yahweh is untouchable. Yahweh, as you say, is simply the Jewish name for God (call him/her/it Jehovah, or Allah, or a UI, or whatever you like), and although I do not believe in him/her/it, unlike yourself I do not KNOW whether some such God exists or not. > > Why are you comfortable saying you know that about Thor and FSM, but not Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/etc...? What is the difference you see? > > > And since I have no answers of my own to the big questions, I respect those who think they have, so long as they show the same respect to others who do not share their beliefs. > > Agreed, but I don't necessarily extend that respect to their beliefs.- Here is one place where we part: it matters not to me if someone still believes in Thor or Yaweh; at the end of the day each of us chooses some kind of mythology to fill our answers, whether its agreed upon by experiment or by personal experience alone. (The two extremes.) I'm enough of a materialist to subject my views to strict criteria, but enough of a mystic to realize that emotive responses are as real as physical responses. Because I can't reproduce a feeling, doesn't mean that there isn't a reality there. We're as hard-wired for religion as we are for vision. It makes no difference to me, what form a person chooses. To quote from Sextus Empiricus, "Moreover, we cannot even give preference on the basis of the power of reason, i.e., by treating the rational animal as a carrier of greater knowledge than the irrational animal. For the irrational animal is still adept at navigating their environment, which presupposes the ability to know about some aspects of the environment." That which was good for "primitive" man is just as valid now.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
What do we need a deity for?
MATT: Kind of a common-sense "Practicality" approach. "How do we move forward?" I ask the question, "Why move at all?" In my own case, I agree to a large extent that if life didn't arrive by a creator, than the only recourse is by chance, but belief in such a staggering lottery is precisely why dhw calls this "faith in chance." It is precisely this fence that is one of several that I sit on--however prickly the post is. We need more of the story before I accept the result. -Matt and I have many areas of disagreement, but I can only express absolute solidarity here! Matt, you go on to reproduce various exchanges between Kent and myself, and it would be very helpful if you would indicate who says what in such dialogues.-DHW: Since I have no answers of my own to the big questions, I respect those who think they have, so long as they show the same respect to others who do not share their beliefs.-KENT: Agreed, but I don't necessarily extend that respect to their beliefs.-MATT: Here is one place where we part: it matters not to me if someone still believes in Thor or Yaweh; at the end of the day each of us chooses some kind of mythology to fill our answers, whether its agreed upon by experiment or by personal experience alone. (The two extremes.) I'm enough of a materialist to subject my views to strict criteria, but enough of a mystic to realize that emotive responses are as real as physical responses. Because I can't reproduce a feeling, doesn't mean that there isn't a reality there. We're as hard-wired for religion as we are for vision. It makes no difference to me, what form a person chooses. To quote from Sextus Empiricus, "Moreover, we cannot even give preference on the basis of the power of reason, i.e., by treating the rational animal as a carrier of greater knowledge than the irrational animal. For the irrational animal is still adept at navigating their environment, which presupposes the ability to know about some aspects of the environment." That which was good for "primitive" man is just as valid now.-I think this is a very important point to which perhaps we have not given full value. Earlier, Kent raised the question of what constitutes evidence. We agreed that "I can't explain X is not evidence for Y", which of course cuts both ways, since it applies equally to the theories of chance and design, but in terms of belief (as opposed to knowledge) the inexplicable takes on a very different role. Since absolute knowledge is almost certainly impossible in the God versus Chance conflict, all of us ultimately have to operate on the level of belief, and the hard evidence of science is absolutely not the only form of reality. I applaud Matt's subjection of his views to strict criteria (I don't believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden either), and I also applaud his openness to experiences that are not governed by reason. If we went by reason alone, I suspect we would have to forego nearly all the most enriching experiences of our lives. As for respecting other people's beliefs, again I agree with Matt, always with the proviso that their beliefs do not impinge on the rights of others to follow their own "mythology".
What do we need a deity for?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 09, 2011, 17:34 (4834 days ago) @ dhw
As an addendum I must add that I do not consider "mythology" to mean the more modern parlance of "false" as is typically used as a dismissal. -By "mythology" I mean that personal set of symbols that we as humans each construct to represent our lives. I don't mean to suggest that science is "just a story like anything else," either. But that there is a deeply subjective part of man that I feel is actually the strongest part of man's character that works to integrate the pieces that IT finds the most compelling. Sometimes what IT wants aren't necessarily those things considered rational or reasonable by other people, and err on the side of the individual over groups in nearly every instance. Too often I see naturalism and materialism used in such a way as to assert a superiority or dominance unwarranted: Science is the most reliable method to learning about our world, but by all means not the primary nor even the first tool scientists use when engaging in the process: Science is a man-made tool, and it's always important to remember this when talking about it. -Do we have a material reason to believe in a soul or in disembodied consciousness? No. But people have had experiences that raise enough doubt in my mind as to the validity of the assumption of naturalism (vs. methodological naturalism). This means that for me, the world is shrouded ever more in veils of gray, (or grey for our British friend 
) to which dogmatic claims to final truths begin to unravel.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
What do we need a deity for?
by whateverist , Thursday, August 04, 2011, 20:45 (4838 days ago) @ dhw
[That's weird. I thought that this forum was shutting down in favor of the Agnostics International forums. Oops.]-"But there are other answers to whateverist's question. I don't think there is any doubt that belief in God brings enormous comfort to people in times of need, and it brings hope to people who have no other source for hope."-This rational sounds like a consolation prize. Perhaps the wheel of life has plunked you into less than optimal circumstances but you can still imagine you "shall inherit the earth". I would hate to need religion or belief in god for this reason.- "I would look again at the context of science and religion and say that not only are they perfectly compatible, but that there are things that science can't explain and MAYBE ... just maybe ... religion can."-Here we are in complete agreement. Our subjective experience may resist inter-personal agreement more than the physical world, but it is not so easily ignored. While I don't think religion offers the most promising approach to understanding intra-personal phenomena I do think that this is where religion gets its start. At the very least this intra-personal dimension is where we must turn to make sense of such important things as values, meaning and fulfillment. Assuming that these have an existence which is more stable and less arbitrary than our consciously formulated opinions, it does make sense to think of an intra-personal world as having a reality that needs to be taken into account. And there are consequences for getting it wrong. Anyone who has experienced the frustration of writer's block or the flatness of depression knows how important it is to maintain a proper relationship with the muse. - "Science cannot explain the origin of life (see "Abiogenesis") or the origin of those physical mechanisms that have enabled the earliest forms of life to evolve as they have done."-Perhaps science cannot lay out exactly how life came to be with perfect finality but there certainly are a many good pieces in place for a scientific explanation for the origins of the natural world. There is no reason to put science on the clock to come up with the rest of the pieces. -Even if we should decide that the exact answer is ultimately beyond the scope of science that does not automatically imply that magic/deism must hold the answer. While it may be true to call my confidence that there will be a natural explanation for the natural world an unfounded belief, I'm unwilling to concede that it is a matter of faith. That word is too loaded with religious overtones to serve here. A hunch about something too murky to allow proper conclusions doesn't seem to qualify as faith.-Now if someone is harboring a desire for faith in a deity, then they may take the failure of science to already adequately explain the origins of the natural world as permitting a return to religious faith. But that shouldn't be confused with requiring a turn to religious faith or a deity. - "the question still arises as to whether we can be sure that all the unsolved mysteries of life and the universe are solvable in material terms. If not, then we must allow for the possibility of a form of life completely beyond the range of our cognition."-Exactly. The possibility of a deity is still there but that not address the necessity for believing that any such thing exists. Of course, even if one opts for an extra-natural explanation the question of which explanation would be daunting.
What do we need a deity for?
Dhw: I don't think there is any doubt that belief in God brings enormous comfort to people in times of need, and it brings hope to people who have no other source for hope.-Whateverist: This rational sounds like a consolation prize. Perhaps the wheel of life has plunked you into less than optimal circumstances but you can still imagine you "shall inherit the earth". I would hate to need religion or belief in god for this reason.-So would I. But you asked why people need a deity, and I'm only trying to answer your question in general terms. I'm not a believer myself. Dhw: I would look again at the context of science and religion and say that not only are they perfectly compatible, but that there are things that science can't explain and MAYBE ... just maybe ... religion can.-Whateverist: Here we are in complete agreement. Our subjective experience may resist inter-personal agreement more than the physical world, but it is not so easily ignored. [...] At the very least this intra-personal dimension is where we must turn to make sense of such important things as values, meaning and fulfillment. [...] - I would go a little further than you. I would include under subjective experience all the mysteries of consciousness, such as the emotions, artistic expression, memory, self-awareness, empathy, ideas etc. Other so far unexplained mysteries include the origin of the mechanisms of life and evolution, mystic and psychic experiences, the nature of the universe...On the other hand, I personally see no need for religion in matters relating to values, meaning and fulfilment. For me it's only our ability to think about values etc. that opens the door to something beyond the natural world as we know it.-Dhw: Science cannot explain the origin of life (see "Abiogenesis") or the origin of those physical mechanisms that have enabled the earliest forms of life to evolve as they have done.-Whateverist: Perhaps science cannot lay out exactly how life came to be with perfect finality but there certainly are a many good pieces in place for a scientific explanation for the origins of the natural world. There is no reason to put science on the clock to come up with the rest of the pieces. -There does indeed have to be a scientific explanation for all material phenomena including the origin of life. We are physical beings, and there has to be a physical combination that brought us into existence. However, the longer it takes to find, and the more complex the processes, the less easy it becomes (for me) to embrace the belief that they are the product of chance. This is one reason why I argue that science and religion are not incompatible.-Whateverist: Even if we should decide that the exact answer is ultimately beyond the scope of science that does not automatically imply that magic/deism must hold the answer. -I agree 100%. Nor does it imply that chance must hold the answer. Welcome to the world of the agnostic!-Whateverist: While it may be true to call my confidence that there will be a natural explanation for the natural world an unfounded belief, I'm unwilling to concede that it is a matter of faith. That word is too loaded with religious overtones to serve here. A hunch about something too murky to allow proper conclusions doesn't seem to qualify as faith.-That depends entirely on how strong your atheism is. In my view, anyone who is truly convinced that chance is capable of creating the still unfathomably complex mechanisms of life and evolution has "a strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence" (Collins definition of "faith"). This I would deem to be the atheist equivalent of belief in God. If you have a murky hunch (I love the expression) that there is no designer and that chance is, let us say, a far more likely explanation, I would not dream of using the word "faith". I would only apply it to someone who categorically rejected the theory of design, and dismissed all deities as "utterly ridiculous", because then ... as I see it ... that person would have no alternative other than to believe in the unproven theory of chance. whateverist: Now if someone is harboring a desire for faith in a deity, then they may take the failure of science to already adequately explain the origins of the natural world as permitting a return to religious faith. But that shouldn't be confused with requiring a turn to religious faith or a deity.-100% agreed. -DHW: "the question still arises as to whether we can be sure that all the unsolved mysteries of life and the universe are solvable in material terms. If not, then we must allow for the possibility of a form of life completely beyond the range of our cognition."-Whateverist: Exactly. The possibility of a deity is still there but that not address the necessity for believing that any such thing exists. Of course, even if one opts for an extra-natural explanation the question of which explanation would be daunting.-This is a good summary of the agnostic position.
What do we need a deity for?
by whateverist , Saturday, August 06, 2011, 03:00 (4837 days ago) @ dhw
I think we agree on much more than we don't. The biggest difference I find is that you, I sense, feel that whatever is necessary for explaining our subjective world of experience must or may have to also be called on to explain the natural world. I'm not sure why allowing something like mythology when it comes to understanding our unconscious should lead to a similar approach to understanding the natural world. -Admittedly, our inner world of experience arises, so far as any one knows, only in minds which are to be found only in brains which only occur in physical bodies. So in a sense, the processes of the mind do fairly belong in a fuller accounting of the natural world. -I'm just not sure there is or ever will be a way to objectively observe some phenomena like dreams or inspiration, even though there has been progress in objectively observing emotions. Of course the problem isn't even exclusively an inter-personal one. There is difficulty enough in observing these phenomena accurately even within ourselves which will lead some to conclude it is all just random noise within the system or something of the kind.
What do we need a deity for?
Whateverist: I think we agree on much more than we don't. -I think so too. I have the impression from your posts that you are an agnostic with atheist leanings, as opposed to being an outright atheist (which entails the categorical rejection of any concept of a deity, with all the attendant intellectual consequences). Maybe seven out of ten, while I sit firmly on the fence at five out of ten?-Whateverist: The biggest difference I find is that you, I sense, feel that whatever is necessary for explaining our subjective world of experience must or may have to also be called on to explain the natural world. I'm not sure why allowing something like mythology when it comes to understanding our unconscious should lead to a similar approach to understanding the natural world.-For me mythology doesn't come into it, if by that you are referring to books like the Bible and the Koran. I find most religious concepts of God horribly unconvincing, and squirm when I go to a religious ceremony (weddings, funerals) and hear preachers extolling the good, ignoring the bad, and expressing God's thoughts and wishes as if they knew him/her/it personally. But if I did believe in a God, there is no way that I could separate it from the natural world, and you have already explained why:-"Admittedly, our inner world of experience arises, so far as any one knows, only in minds which are to be found only in brains which only occur in physical bodies. So in a sense, the processes of the mind do fairly belong in a fuller accounting of the natural world."-In order to create life, a designer would also have had to create the conditions for life. As regards the subjective world of experience, if we were created by a conscious intelligence, it would seem totally logical to me that our own conscious intelligence would be a kind of reflection of its own. I do not think it could create something that was totally alien to itself. And so if God made man in his image, it follows that we reflect him and he reflects us. (I like Voltaire's variation on this, though: "If God made us in His image, we have certainly returned the compliment.") Whateverist: I'm just not sure there is or ever will be a way to objectively observe some phenomena like dreams or inspiration, even though there has been progress in objectively observing emotions. Of course the problem isn't even exclusively an inter-personal one. There is difficulty enough in observing these phenomena accurately even within ourselves which will lead some to conclude it is all just random noise within the system or something of the kind.-You may be right. Scientists have unravelled many of the electrical processes that accompany our various brain activities, but what governs those processes, how the cells produce the thoughts, the awareness, the memory, the will, is one of the great mysteries. Maybe it's all chemicals. Maybe it's some unknown form of energy that both shapes and is shaped by our physical selves. I dunno.
What do we need a deity for?
by whateverist , Sunday, August 07, 2011, 02:45 (4836 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: For me mythology doesn't come into it, if by that you are referring to books like the Bible and the Koran.-No, I had something more like Joseph Campbell's take on mythology. Mythology and Jungian psychology may shed some light on the workings of the unconscious. I'm with you when it comes to holy books, although even these could be read intelligently as literature with subtle meanings rather than as explicit directions for currying favor with the head honcho so as to get invited to the big hereafter.
What do we need a deity for?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 08, 2011, 21:47 (4834 days ago) @ whateverist
dhw: For me mythology doesn't come into it, if by that you are referring to books like the Bible and the Koran. > > No, I had something more like Joseph Campbell's take on mythology. Mythology and Jungian psychology may shed some light on the workings of the unconscious. I'm with you when it comes to holy books, although even these could be read intelligently as literature with subtle meanings rather than as explicit directions for currying favor with the head honcho so as to get invited to the big hereafter.-I fully agree with you here, whateverist. Mythology (especially of the Jungian kind, espoused by Campbell--is a powerful answer to what motivates the Human Psyche.)-Some answers for David in this regard as I prepare my response for his Chapter 6. It will be large.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"