I think that carpathian has made my point, the point that I share with him, more cogently than I - in fact, I have not been particularly lucid lately. But I disagree with him about one thing - that we would not have invented a god today. We would. We love certainty. Well, not all of us do. But most people do. I fact, there are more gods now, more religions than ever.
We can define this god any way we want - one of the “benefits” of near-universal eductation and the spread of leisure in the West. It’s easier than ever to invent and implement our own religion. And we do.
ur probably right faust.
but i still don’t think that if shown all the scientifical progress which is a slow process one would go one step further and postulate god.
I think this time we would have the decency to look at the issue with patience and accept that only future generations will know more.
Oh Jesus, of course people would invent a God today. (Sorry, I haven’t been on the whole day and now I’m totally off on the conversation.)
But I disagree with Faust that it would be done out of a need for certainty. There’s no more certainty in theism than athiesm; sure in the former there’s an all-powerful, omnipotent being, but for all you know he might just send you to hell or may not even care about you at all. This is countered in dogma by the old “we must be right 'cause that’s the way it is” found in many of the more rigid religions, but it remains a deep and terrible thought in the mind of the theist, a thought very hard to supress, which often finds its outlet in projecting one’s own doubts on outsiders (i.e. Pagans, etc.) but that’s a differant topic altogether.
Instead, I believe that man’s need for God (or something like it; you know: spirit of nature, collective soul, whatever. At core it’s all the same just elaborated upon in differant ways…) is instead based on a sense of the unknown (the universe, the unconcious, etc.) the manifests in the image of God. It’s easy to think that it is a manifestation of a fear of the unknown, and that, I agree, is part of what the God-figure is, but it also represents the possibilties of the unknown.
Differant faiths highlight differant aspects of the God-figure in their own way, so when one that highlights the fearful part of it particularly grows as large as some of the dominating sects of the Judaic decended relegions have, it’s easy to think of the idea of God as just a daddy figure. But this ignores the attitudes displayed in many other mythologies, particularly the old pagan ones, (Mr. Crowley’s “Do as thy wilt shall be the whole of the law,” comes to mind) or the Alchemic beliefs of the middle ages, that highlight the possibilites of the unknown.
The only half positive thing i see about belief in god is a cure for this cosmic loneliness… but even that’s not for people like me. I’m ok even if my life doesn’t have a meaning; moreover if it doesn’t have one that means i’m free to create one myself.
So maybe it’s ok as a “cure for cosmic loneliness”… but its still not worth it because of the extra baggage it carries.
Well, carp - that’s partly what I mean by certainty. That cosmic loneliness thing. It’s like mom and dad are still sleeping in the next room. Question - I think there very much is more certainty - certainty being merely a psychological state.
The mystery of God? Yeah, I guess so. I dunno. I’m going to go a couple of days without getting high, and think about it.
I definitely think any being will inevitably create the notion of God, a direct consequence of their intelligence and finitude. Though if God himself did exist, how could verify that he himself was God! (Perhaps he´d simply have to believe it!)
The main problem I think creating this endless confusion is as follows:
-If the atheist is speaking of RELIGION when he denies having a belief, he can rightly do so, providing he does indeed believe no religious system. In this sense he does have a “lack of belief”. However…
-When the atheist speaks (all religion aside) of the ultimate cause of the universe (if there is one), its origin and nature, etc., he CANNOT deny having a belief if he asserts that no intelligence whatsoever can possibly be the answer to such a question.
In the religious sense, I class myself as an athiest, as I entirely reject all religion. However, philosphically, to remain true to its spirit, I cannot possibly assert, as matter of fact, that some sort of intelligent entity could not exist, as all such talk is mere speculation, and hence belief. Anything could be correct, but nothing should be taken as true. Consequently, both theist and atheist claims (in the non-religious sense) can never be treated as knowledge, but most remain as mere belief.
In my view, confusion has arisen from the strong link between religion and metaphysics. Any speak of God must therefore be accompanied by clarification on the sense in which you speak of the question.
Thats another problem i have with religion. So many times you see people parying and talking about god… but it strikes you that its not the same god. Each person sees in god what they want to see. Thats another issues which should be more clear in the future.
Exactly Carpathian, each person sees in the God-figure the aspect they choose, (the aspects they choose not to see usually get shifted to the devil.)
It’s becoming increasingly important that we don’t confuse our subjective views of God (or… you know… inifinity and spirituality and all that stuff…) with objective reality. Reading Joseph Campbell’s “Creative Mythology” lately, (I know some people on the board aren’t fans of Campbell or the whole Jungian school of thought, but bear with me,) I’ve become convinced that relegion (and belief in general for that matter,) is becoming more and more decentralized as more people look to their own experiences to shape their beliefs, (progressing over the centuries in the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment and, or course, the work of Nietzsche…)
However, if we continue to cling to the old objective view of God, this splintering of belief will breed far more strife around the world as people try and fail to reconcile their God with the Gods of others. Hopefully people will realize that in truth it’s really all the same idea, split into differant aspects, (the metaphor of a prism seems appropriate…)
Sorry about the interruption, guys. But to add a little something to the topic (and to defy the present conversation)… the biggest irk I get from being an atheist is the misconception that I have no morals.
Just on a side-note: Surely an all-powerful God would have the abililty to simultaneously exist and not-exist at the same time… Lowly Politicians may never be able to please everyone all the time, but hey - this is God we’re talking about here, isn’t it…?
It´s certainly expected becasue they are told by their beliefs that God endowed them with a moral faculty. However it is not right then assume that God is necessary for someone to be moral.
A theist acts morally because he is commanded, whereas an atheist does so off his own back. I know which I think sounds the more honourable.
No, I disagree. Morals to an extent were crafted by the need to establish a society. If everyone were to kill anyone they wanted to, there’d be no functioning society. Same goes for a certain level of honesty and child care.
It definitely isn’t only right they look at atheists as having no morals.
(I haven’t been on in a few days, but it’s really late so I’ll make this quick…)
You’re quite wrong Duder; ethics stem from a the need of a society to keep itself together, a common moral code is the best way to do this. Society has often employed relegion in expounding upon, preaching, etc. this code, but to think it must stem from relegion and, therefore in many’s view, God, I’m afraid has brought some great misunderstandings upon our heads.
Of course morals and ethics are totally differant, (former is personal, latter is formed by group,) though one can easily influence the other. Morals, on their own, may very well come from God, I don’t really know, but your God, not necessarily someone else’s…