Post: #1

It seems to me the idea of god that monotheistic religions have is somewhat flawed and I wanted to open a discussion on it. Along with pre-Christian Indo-European religions I believe the idea of Natural Order (or even something like 'Fate') supersedes the idea of a God.

For example, if God made some law or ruling, he will then be obliged to stand by that law and apply it fairly and consistently to all humans. This means that God himself is constrained by certain laws. I dont think even God can overcome Karma. I mean he is just a powerful 'being' right?

The early Indo-Europeans had something akin to Natural Order or Fate that was more powerful than any god. The early concept of God was quite different to what people think of today. Originally I think a god was a type of 'Divine Force' something that poets sang about. This could be the Sky (Zeus Pater), Earth (Prthvi, Gaia) or Thunder ( Thor, Indra) and more abstract concepts such as Mitra and Aryaman and Dionysus.

It seems that as these small Indo-Europeans groups spread out their Gods became more human-like and prominent, while the backdrop of Fate or Natural Order faded out. Hence we have Zeus more a King of Gods than a deification of the Sky.

Sometime in Central Asia, Zoroaster, a priest, reformed his local Indo-European pagan religion and created a Monotheistic faith centred on one Ahura Mazda, "Lord Wisdom". To cut a long story short, I believe this, combined with some rather semitic influencs resulted in the Abrahamic faiths. Due to the pervasiveness of these faiths, there seems to be an assumption on most peoples part that this concept of God is somehow natural. Hence, most people here are either Atheist or Christian. Either belief in God or not.

However, Atheism seems to be a position defined by it's opposition or negation of what seems to be a largely Abrahamic assertion of 'God'. But what is this Abrahamic God exactly, I know what he has apparently done, but what exactly is he? or It? or She? I know they dont have an answer to this. God we are told, is a being who exists and who created the Universe. For me this is too vague an idea to talk about meaningfully, hence I consider the idea of God null and void. Atheism, being in opposition to something undefined, is unecessary.

So from being well-defined actors in early indo-european religious poetry, secondary to the ideas of Truth or Natural Order, these, now abstract and vague divinities have become the centre of many major religions, the definition of truth and independent of any system (Karma, Fate, Cause-Consequence etc).

I think for any discussion or understanding of religion to be worthwhile, we really need to re-visit the idea of 'God', where it came from, and whether it can remain such a central concept.

Post: #2

I was raised without religion, to me it seems like a strange relic from before science.

I think atheism is a term defined in terms of religion from when belief is gods was more common, I feel more like I'm simply "not religious," sort outside an irrelevant debate.

Maybe earlier in history when animal sacrifices were common there was a term for those who did not sacrifice.

Such a term is so irrelevant now no one uses it. Among the highly educated discussions or religion are increasingly rare, and thus the term "atheism" is too falling out of use except for those who engage in an increasingly irrelevant debate.

Now, unfortunately the people who talk the most publicly about religion are nuts like ISIS.

Post: #3

The ancient Indo-European (or Aryan) religion was Semitic in the first place. Their two most popular dieties (the sky father and the dawn goddess) came from Mesopotamia.

Post: #4

It wasnt semitic. Zeus Pater for instance has a perfectly Indo European name Zeus related to divine, day, diety and pater with latin pater, germanic vader, and english father.

Post: #5

When I was reading 'A History of God', the author discusses early religion.

It appears that in the most ancient times, in a time when land was plenty and people were few, people worshiped mother nature and divine goddesses and the soil. These religions reflected egalitarian values, with all forces existing in harmony.

As time went on and land/resources became scarce and war became inevitable, religion switched to worshiping male sky gods. The religions reflected command-and-control structures, with everything in its place in a hierarchy.

So in times of prosperity - women are worshiped.

In times of scarcity - men are worshiped.

Go figure.

I never did finish reading that book, it became boring, but the first part of it was fascinating, especially about how Judaism was initially polytheistic with Yahweh initially just being the tribal god of war, full of wrath and fury.

Post: #6

I think it probably just comes down to two things: people clutch at straws when they don't have answers (hence the saying "where science ends religion begins"), and people attempt to dominate each other with words and ideas. Religion is an intersection of those two aspects of human nature.

We shouldn't participate in debates about "whether god is real", because participating in that debate is actually itself submission to these people. Since they are demanding we accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence, the debate should end there, and a new debate should be opened about what the nature of people who use religion is.

I suspect it is merely a pure form of intellectual domination, and one of the ways by which the human species selects for intelligence. It is kind of like a pure debate (i.e. a debate without a topic), where the winners rise socially by dominating each other in these debates, and thereby have more successful reproduction etc (lifelong celebacy is more of a quirk of Christianity specifically, and it's disallowed in Islam).

It can be interesting to have debates with the more skillful religious, as long as you pay attention to how they are debating versus naively framing the debate as being about a real thing. It seems to be about escalating levels of abstraction, something that is mentally taxing. Men with bigger brains are able to defeat men with smaller brains in these intellectual jousts, because of the difficulty of rapidly responding to these increasing layers of abstraction, and coherently responding with equal or higher layers, without getting confused or jamming up.

TL;DR: Religion is likely about sexual selection, indirectly, through increasing social status via verbal domination. It isn't about a real thing, it is merely a phenomenon resulting from how the large-brained human species works.

Post: #7

It's not very helpful to think in terms of "fate". It's more a question of destiny. The difference, at least to me, is that one (destiny) is responsive to our actions, while the other is not. In my view people who believe in fate too strongly don't really grasp the concept of feedback. They think that cause and effect run in an infinitely long straight line and that the initial conditions determine everything else about the system. But processes aren't linear. They are cyclical. And they aren't linear because of the existence of feedback. So the line isn't an infinitely long straight line, but more like a circle. Or more accurately multiple related, and never ending, cycles.

Anyway, all that just to point out that it isn't a question of God vs Determinism. That is a straw man argument by some religious people use against atheism. But the natural order isn't anywhere close to deterministic/fatalistic. You can only imagine it is if you study a very narrow phenomena and, for the sake of your study, assume all other things are equal (Cetirus Paribus). But in actual life the Cetiruses are never Paribus...

Post: #8

(09-21-2015 10:03 PM)vrtrahan Wrote:  It wasnt semitic. Zeus Pater for instance has a perfectly Indo European name Zeus related to divine, day, diety and pater with latin pater, germanic vader, and english father.

That doesn't mean it wasn't of Semitic origin. In deed, the days of the week and names of the planets all use indo-european terms but are known to have originated from Semitic gods. Interpretatio Romana/Graeca did exist.

Zeus Pater's position in the pantheon, his association with storms, and his legacy as a playboy all originated from Semites. The only aspect that was really missing was him dying and being quickened. Those appear in a god with a similar name: Dionysus.

Post: #9

I guess there probably are some day and planet names with semitic roots, but I think most (certainly day names) have a IE root. Zeus is just the Greek version of the IE sky father also known as Dyaus Pita and Jupiter. The greek Zeus may have taken a few semitic characteristics, but his association with the sky, his position as head or father and his name are all distinctly IE. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suggest that major aspects of IE religion have any kind of semitic root.

Quite the opposite infact, when you consider that the Abrahamic faiths borrow so much from Zoroastrianism (in particular).

Post: #10

Essentially the same god appearing in Semitic myths can't be chalked to mere coincidence let alone be said to not have any association.

Post: #11

So much fedora in this...

Where are the resident post-atheist Sonsowey and the Catholicism expert Paracelsus?

Post: #12

This paper by Roger Scruton (.pdf) is a fascinating examination of the place of the sacred within the human condition, and the consequences of its loss. It is an eloquent and thoughtful treatise that will resonate with many who post on this forum:

https://t.co/alfh543W

Post: #13

(09-24-2015 09:15 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  Roger Scruton

I'm just reading his wiki page, sounds like a very bright guy.

Quote:Scruton's argument was that positive attitudes to homosexuality in society are socially deleterious because homosexuals have no children and consequently no interest in creating a socially stable future. This basic antisocial impulse that Scruton argued was the consequence of homosexuality meant that he considered society to be justified in continuing to "instil in our children feelings of revulsion" towards homosexuality.

Quote:He defined post-modernism as the claim that there are no grounds for truth, objectivity, and meaning, and therefore conflicts between views are nothing more than contests of power, and argued that, while the West is required to judge other cultures in their own terms, Western culture is adversely judged as ethnocentric and racist. He wrote: "The very reasoning which sets out to destroy the ideas of objective truth and absolute value imposes political correctness as absolutely binding, and cultural relativism as objectively true."

Solid reasoning.

Quote:Armed with his Rousseauist doctrines of popular sovereignty, or his Marxist ideas of power and ideology, the revolutionary can de-legitimize any existing institution and find quite imperceivable the distinction between law aimed at justice and law aimed at power.

So he's also well aware of the difference between natural law and positive law and how this plays out in society.

Quote:Scruton considers that religion plays a basic function in "endarkening" human minds. "Endarkenment" is Scruton's way of describing the process of socialization through which certain behaviours and choices are closed off and forbidden to the subject, which he considers to be necessary in order to curb socially damaging impulses and behaviours.

Interesting. Religion certainly does that. I'd like to think that the generally public are capable of behaving with common decency without priests putting them in mental straight-jackets though. This is, after all, the subjective reasoning (e.g. deferring to a person rather than facts) he speaks against in the previous quote, but yet he defends it here. I don't see how people can suddenly switch to objective reasoning in non-social issues, but stay with subjective reasoning on social issues.

The Japanese aren't religious and they manage to behave in a very socially ordered way, far beyond many religious cultures. They seem to mostly rely on deferring to elders. I think its quite barbaric the idea that we'd have to rely on priests 'endarkening' the minds of children with lies about supernatural beings to maintain social order.

Post: #14

(09-24-2015 10:41 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(09-24-2015 09:15 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  Roger Scruton

I'm just reading his wiki page, sounds like a very bright guy.

Quote:Scruton's argument was that positive attitudes to homosexuality in society are socially deleterious because homosexuals have no children and consequently no interest in creating a socially stable future. This basic antisocial impulse that Scruton argued was the consequence of homosexuality meant that he considered society to be justified in continuing to "instil in our children feelings of revulsion" towards homosexuality.

Quote:He defined post-modernism as the claim that there are no grounds for truth, objectivity, and meaning, and therefore conflicts between views are nothing more than contests of power, and argued that, while the West is required to judge other cultures in their own terms, Western culture is adversely judged as ethnocentric and racist. He wrote: "The very reasoning which sets out to destroy the ideas of objective truth and absolute value imposes political correctness as absolutely binding, and cultural relativism as objectively true."

Solid reasoning.

Quote:Armed with his Rousseauist doctrines of popular sovereignty, or his Marxist ideas of power and ideology, the revolutionary can de-legitimize any existing institution and find quite imperceivable the distinction between law aimed at justice and law aimed at power.

So he's also well aware of the difference between natural law and positive law and how this plays out in society.

Quote:Scruton considers that religion plays a basic function in "endarkening" human minds. "Endarkenment" is Scruton's way of describing the process of socialization through which certain behaviours and choices are closed off and forbidden to the subject, which he considers to be necessary in order to curb socially damaging impulses and behaviours.

Interesting. Religion certainly does that. I'd like to think that the generally public are capable of behaving with common decency without priests putting them in mental straight-jackets though. This is, after all, the subjective reasoning (e.g. deferring to a person rather than facts) he speaks against in the previous quote, but yet he defends it here. I don't see how people can suddenly switch to objective reasoning in non-social issues, but stay with subjective reasoning on social issues.

The Japanese aren't religious and they manage to behave in a very socially ordered way, far beyond many religious cultures. They seem to mostly rely on deferring to elders. I think its quite barbaric the idea that we'd have to rely on priests 'endarkening' the minds of children with lies about supernatural beings to maintain social order.

He is a fascinating man.

To address your last point specifically, I would say that whoever wrote his wiki page may not have fully grasped Scruton's argument, which is made extremely eloquently in the 20 page (big type face ) that I posted. I think your argument against the interpretation presented by the Wiki page is an insightful one, but is aimed rather at Scruton's unofficial Wiki biographer rather than at Scruton himself. If you do have time and inclination, I think as a clearly well-read and thoughtful chap you would be well served in becoming acquainted with Scruton's work, and I believe that Scruton addresses the point far more subtly than it is condensed into by the quote from the Wiki.

If you don't have time, let me know, and I will attempt to condense the argument rather more longwindedly, giving room to some of the subtleties of Scruton's argument.

I think, as an aside, your point about the Japanese is an interesting one. I had a Japanese girlfriend once whose mother was a famous Buddhist monk, and so took quite an interest. I would say that there are a number of factors at play in the Japanese national psyche that may explain the phenomenon you allude to. Although there is no formal religion, the combination of a continuing reverence for the spiritual life promoted by Buddhism, a culture deeply rooted in tradition and honour, and a staunch national commitment to keeping Japan uniquely Japanese, has preserved many of the social, functional aspects of religion, without necessarily requiring any kind of belief in the transcendental. I think, if you are able to read the paper I posted, you will find that Japanese culture and the aspects of religion Scruton promotes are entirely congruent, and are in fact one and the same thing. Scruton's interpretation of the purpose and limits of religion fit comfortably within your repost to the interpretation of his beliefs by the creator of the Wiki page, and support your point rather than standing in opposition to it.

Post: #15

The Idea of God, is considered heresy among believers, and is a concept that humans invented religion as a way to offer meaning for their suffering. What humans fail to realize is that suffering is our lot, and that we are defined by our experiences.