Latro
March 15, 2013, 7:13pm
61
Just one more example of this way of thinking is the common notion that, as we intelligent humans are the end product of evolution, that evolution is somehow geared to inevitably produce intelligent life.
Latro:
Who is this ‘we’, ‘you’, ‘us’?
Yes, the process from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism to atheism seems logical and linear but that doesn’t mean it always has to go that way.
It is like thinking democracy is something every culture will ultimately arrive at.
Or that the ‘progress’ from hunter-gathering to farming to mercantilism to industrial to social etc is some kind of law that will befall any human society.
“We,” “you” and “us” are pronouns. They are used in sentences to convey ideas.
You are mistaking sufficient for necessary. I am not presenting a Whigish theory of inevitable progress where Victorian Englishmen are the inevitable Hegelian End of History. I am accounting for the actual historical progression that happened to occur, however accidentally. There may well have been nothing deterministic about it; we could have as easily wound up worshiping magic mushrooms. But we didn’t, and that’s interesting.
Latro:
Just one more example of this way of thinking is the common notion that, as we intelligent humans are the end product of evolution, that evolution is somehow geared to inevitably produce intelligent life.
Can I interest you in this fine product ?
The latter fallacy is, BTW, different. The former is conflation of chronological order with causality. The latter is anthropic bias.
They are both wrong, and I am advocating neither.
lekatt
March 15, 2013, 8:32pm
64
JohnnyMac:
I’ve been reading about religion recently, from several different sources. What I love, and find fascinating about religion, is how many stories essentially appear again and again, in culture after culture.
Death and resurrection: often for three days. Cashford, Moon in Myth and Image , notes that three days is the same as the dark of the moon, and suggests that’s where the myth finds its root. The moon dies each month, but returns again to its full light: why can’t humans? Gods certainly do: Mithras, Osiris, Jesus, Demeter, Inanna…some explaining the wintertime, others to save mankind, some…just for kicks?
Self-sacrifice, too: a god sacrificing himself to himself. Perusha, Odin, Brahma, Mithras, Jesus. Where does it come from? Reverence of the animal the society relied on for survival, and its sacrifice so we may live - and then the concept becomes deified?
Enheduanna has Inanna destroy a mountain whose description sounds very like the garden of Eden. The translator suggests it represents the dawn of mankind feeling they can tame and control nature - and Enheduanna’s against it. The biblical story’s the flip side of the coin - spirit has been divorced from nature and Eden is perfection. The myths came into being at roughly the same place and period in history.
What other myths are there like this, archetypal stories that we see in culture after culture? Is there something deep in the human psyche where they take root, is it some historic stage or event in our past, or is it coincidence and cultural osmosis that they take such similar forms?
Religion is passing in the wind, people are leaving the churches by the millions. Maybe in your lifetime there will be no religion at all. Thirty percent of the U.S. is now secular. I believe it will be replaced by something more relevant to life.
Czarcasm:
Like atheism?
If only we were organized and had a logo -
Hey, that’s a great idea!
Latro
March 15, 2013, 10:42pm
68
But who would be willing to get us started with this new non-church???
And what about all those issues all atheists agree on? If we organize we could a force for good-become something more than what we are now.
Latro
March 15, 2013, 10:50pm
70
You mean like we could all be mad at God together .
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Wait - we’re going to need a leader to create the agenda - who has the most coherent atheist philosophy?
lekatt
March 16, 2013, 3:03am
73
Spiritualism will take the place of religion. There will always be a minority of atheists.
The Gauntlet has been tossed - we have identified the anti-atheist leader.
Who will protect us?
Steken
March 18, 2013, 7:46am
76
Kepler1571:
Sure, that’s how it starts. But then you start abstracting. What is it we mean when we say there is a spirit in the pond giving water or in the air giving rain? “Spiritness” has to be non-corporeal because we can’t see it. That suggests strongly that it is related to Uncle Og’s soul. Now if you’re a Platonist you get really fancy taking *form *from matter and calling it the first principle. But most of us aren’t that clever, and we stop at a more or less anthropomorphized God.
Theology develops like physics. At first, if I throw a rock at you it has an impact, and if you fall off the cliff wall it has an impact. Eventually we abstract the idea of “force” from all these individual cases – the rock doesn’t have “impact” in it, but impact is the noun behind all the impact verbs. In the same way, “God” came from all the little god-like verbing we used to populate the enchanted world with.
Once again, I’m not buying it.
The scenario you’re describing might well have played out with one Og, or with two Ogs, or with three – but not necessarily with all Ogs. It’s not a universal law. Far from it.
Many Ogs never came to believe in a “soul” in the first place. Certainly many Ogs never came to believe in a “soul” which survives the death of the physical body. And many, many Ogs wouldn’t understand the distinction you’re making between “body” and “soul”, and wouldn’t (and didn’t) draw the conclusion that “spiritness” has to be “non-corporeal”.
Steken
March 18, 2013, 7:49am
77
Please describe the difference between “Spiritualism” and “religion”.
Also, do you, by “Spiritualism”, mean Spiritualism ? If so, and why (and how) do you believe “Spiritualism” will replace “religion”?
Steken
March 18, 2013, 7:51am
78
Kepler1571:
“We,” “you” and “us” are pronouns. They are used in sentences to convey ideas.
You are mistaking sufficient for necessary. I am not presenting a Whigish theory of inevitable progress where Victorian Englishmen are the inevitable Hegelian End of History. I am accounting for the actual historical progression that happened to occur, however accidentally. There may well have been nothing deterministic about it; we could have as easily wound up worshiping magic mushrooms. But we didn’t, and that’s interesting.
A lot of people did end up worshiping magic mushrooms. I guess they’re not part of the “we” here…?
Latro
March 18, 2013, 9:59am
79
Kepler1571:
You are mistaking sufficient for necessary. I am not presenting a Whigish theory of inevitable progress where Victorian Englishmen are the inevitable Hegelian End of History. I am accounting for the actual historical progression that happened to occur, however accidentally. There may well have been nothing deterministic about it; we could have as easily wound up worshiping magic mushrooms.
Good.
And then you go on to do exactly that.
Steken
March 18, 2013, 11:05am
80
Once again, I am not buying it.
If it is indeed true that “people are leaving the churches by the millions”, how does it follow that religion itself is therefore on its way out? I’m not following your logic here.
