Polytheism
I'm a polytheist, now. After taking a whole new approach to the thought process of god, I've come to the conclusion that it's not only possible, but very likely, that an infinite being at one point had divided itself into parts to perform reign and rule over the planet. This becomes exponentially more likely when we take into account that this could be true for many planets we don't know about but are inhabited by life.
I find it equally as likely that being broken down as such had given these lesser gods human-like traits, though I'm fairly shaky on this. I think the purpose behind this, aside from the possible side-effect of being broken down from his original form, was to more easily relate to the human mind, and rule over it more effectively and in such a way that would make more sense to a world inhabited by humans. When you think of it, a god that can't relate and can't think like those he's ruling over is really quite pointless, and I think the original god saw this and acted accordingly.
Any thoughts or ideas?
Also, keep in mind, I don't believe the bible has any divine purpose or source behind it whatsoever, so there's a good chance that anything quoted from there will be ignored or made fun of.
I've bounced around a form of polytheism for a while now, with a monist underlying behind it (like sort of what you describe).
I chose to go more specific, using Greek polytheist concepts in my beliefs; I mean, they're one of the few systems I know off the top of my head that said the act of creation itself was random, which completely resolves the question of "why did God create the universe".
I've bounced around a form of polytheism for a while now, with a monist underlying behind it (like sort of what you describe).
I chose to go more specific, using Greek polytheist concepts in my beliefs; I mean, they're one of the few systems I know off the top of my head that said the act of creation itself was random, which completely resolves the question of "why did God create the universe".
I can't scratch the surface of the "why did god create the universe" question, but I've hammered away at the "why did he create humans" question -
Bill Hicks says:
Though when you think about it, the original god wasn't perfect either, because he had to change to better serve his purpose
c(o_O;c) says:
hmmm
Bill Hicks says:
And actually...
c(o_O;c) says:
well we're thinking like the main god is one entity...as if he were equal to another being..
Bill Hicks says:
I think that may have been our original purpose - to make god imperfect
c(o_O;c) says:
Most likely I think its more complicated than that
c(o_O;c) says:
maybe it just choice to do that out of spite
c(o_O;c) says:
chose*
c(o_O;c) says:
hmm
Bill Hicks says:
With perfection comes completion, and with completion comes stagnation. If god has no purpose because he's perfect, then why does he exist? Dear lord that must be boring and somewhat depressing, knowing you're uselessly perfect.
Bill Hicks says:
So creating humans gave him a goal - chores, I suppose. Something to keep up with.
c(o_O;c) says:
Yes
c(o_O;c) says:
Yes
c(o_O;c) says:
I've been thinking about this as well
Bill Hicks says:
Wow, this discussion is awesome. Lol
c(o_O;c) says:
now that you mention it
c(o_O;c) says:
lol
c(o_O;c) says:
Life would be bland..boring...probably worse if good things were only to happen
Bill Hicks says:
Yup
Bill Hicks says:
So with life has to come death, and good has to come evil.
Bill Hicks says:
But things can't simply be good and evil in a world of humans
Bill Hicks says:
Things are far too complicated for that
c(o_O;c) says:
hmm
c(o_O;c) says:
so you're suggesting
Bill Hicks says:
So he had to split himself further apart - from god and satan, to lesser beings that vaguely add up to those traits
c(o_O;c) says:
more spectrums than that?
c(o_O;c) says:
than those two
c(o_O;c) says:
can we even comprehend more?
Bill Hicks says:
Those are the two basic things, yes, but humans can't be described as simply good and evil
Part of a discussion I'm having with a friend.
Basically, we're suggesting that god, to create purpose for himself, created humans - the one creature that would make him imperfect to rule over, so he adapted and broke himself down somewhat to our level to be more perfect to our needs and standards, while becoming less of a god himself.
Soviet Haaregrad
18-11-2006, 08:18
Polytheism mostly gives you more gods for me to think are silly. :D
Find me an anarchist pantheon and maybe I'll consider it. (Hah, maybe I'll just make one up. That might be fun.)
As it stands, I find the hierarchical notions implicit in most varieties of deity-worship, whatever the quantity, too offensive to consider any such thing.
Polytheism mostly gives you more gods for me to think are silly. :D
I used to say the same thing! I mocked the Romans and Greeks for their simplistic views on the whys and hows of life - "Lightning comes from the sky, so the god of lightning must be the controller of it - when it hits someone, it was an attack from the god of lightning!" but then when really thought about, it kind of makes sense. I think, of course, that the god of lightning must have more on his plate than simply ruling over lightning and thunder - I believe the gods more or less patron over nouns and adjectives so that they can better describe and rule over the world.
So the "God of Lightning" is replaced with the "God of Anger", and is split into sub-gods that rule over lightning, volcanos, floods, rain, etc.
Andaluciae
18-11-2006, 08:26
I think one god takes too much time out of your life, let along multiple gods.
Basically, we're suggesting that god, to create purpose for himself, created humans - the one creature that would make him imperfect to rule over, so he adapted and broke himself down somewhat to our level to be more perfect to our needs and standards, while becoming less of a god himself.
That's a very interesting idea; it's a different angle to say that God's motivation for creating the universe was to create purpose for himself and to limit himself. In fact, a God who is willing to limit himself and to create others capable of metaphysical thought seems more perfect than a God content in his perfection.
Another possible example is that God created humanity with the purpose of having other beings who could create as opposed to simply live along with him; after all, it appears that humans are the only ones capable of creating new ideas through thought, and that's a pretty powerful and unique trait when you think of it.
I'm a polytheist, now. After taking a whole new approach to the thought process of god, I've come to the conclusion that it's not only possible, but very likely, that an infinite being at one point had divided itself into parts to perform reign and rule over the planet. This becomes exponentially more likely when we take into account that this could be true for many planets we don't know about but are inhabited by life.
I find it equally as likely that being broken down as such had given these lesser gods human-like traits, though I'm fairly shaky on this. I think the purpose behind this, aside from the possible side-effect of being broken down from his original form, was to more easily relate to the human mind, and rule over it more effectively and in such a way that would make more sense to a world inhabited by humans. When you think of it, a god that can't relate and can't think like those he's ruling over is really quite pointless, and I think the original god saw this and acted accordingly.
Any thoughts or ideas?
Also, keep in mind, I don't believe the bible has any divine purpose or source behind it whatsoever, so there's a good chance that anything quoted from there will be ignored or made fun of.
I personally find the idea of a one infinite creature split into a nigh infinite number of parts to watch over a nigh infinite number of planets with life a lot more realistic and acceptable than a one god for just one planet. Of course, it's merely academic, since I don't believe such an infinite being would have been possible in the first place, but meh.
I personally find the idea of a one infinite creature split into a nigh infinite number of parts to watch over a nigh infinite number of planets with life a lot more realistic and acceptable than a one god for just one planet. Of course, it's merely academic, since I don't believe such an infinite being would have been possible in the first place, but meh.
It's as least as possible as all of this being random...
Find me an anarchist pantheon and maybe I'll consider it. (Hah, maybe I'll just make one up. That might be fun.)
As it stands, I find the hierarchical notions implicit in most varieties of deity-worship, whatever the quantity, too offensive to consider any such thing.
Well personally I believe there to be a rather abundant number of lesser gods ruling over the world. Chaos and anarchy would have their own gods, theoretically speaking. In fact, those gods may have lesser gods under them, because chaos and anarchy are such broad terms, the lesser gods could better define them.
As it stands, I find the hierarchical notions implicit in most varieties of deity-worship, whatever the quantity, too offensive to consider any such thing.
I think that's a problem that stems from the fact that most of our religious traditions came from thousands of years ago when the hierarchies present in those religions were the political and social norm as well as the religious one.
Of course, that makes me wonder: what happened to world-changing religious innovation after Islam? I mean, it seems like we decided to just stagnate in spiritual matters and focus on the material world, leaving us with a lot of increasingly antiquated religious traditions that don't really work in the context of our modern world.
Maybe we've forgotten that was Deity's (meant to refer to whatever the true nature of the divine is) point behind religious belief in the first place; we were supposed to construct new religions to go along with new technological and social advances so that our connection to those spiritual forces remained strong and would not be lost due to obsolescence. Our innovations were meant to reveal more about Deity because they would shape new religious traditions and help us to understand it better, but instead we just forgot about them and caused them to stagnate.
The Potato Factory
18-11-2006, 08:48
Welcome. I'm a sort of polytheist; I know there's something out there, and I believe there no point in accepting one god unless you accept them all, because they're all equally likely to be out there.
I think that's a problem that stems from the fact that most of our religious traditions came from thousands of years ago when the hierarchies present in those religions were the political and social norm as well as the religious one.
Of course, that makes me wonder: what happened to world-changing religious innovation after Islam? I mean, it seems like we decided to just stagnate in spiritual matters and focus on the material world, leaving us with a lot of increasingly antiquated religious traditions that don't really work in the context of our modern world.
Maybe we've forgotten that was Deity's (meant to refer to whatever the true nature of the divine is) point behind religious belief in the first place; we were supposed to construct new religions to go along with new technological and social advances so that our connection to those spiritual forces remained strong and would not be lost due to obsolescence. Our innovations were meant to reveal more about Deity because they would shape new religious traditions and help us to understand it better, but instead we just forgot about them and caused them to stagnate.
Yar. I'm not sure what happened. It seems like a few religions got so popular that they just kind of shut out all other religion.
I think that's a problem that stems from the fact that most of our religious traditions came from thousands of years ago when the hierarchies present in those religions were the political and social norm as well as the religious one.
Undoubtedly. We are ruled by Kings, so we make God a King. Our Kings make laws and punish us for misdeeds; so does God. We are supposed to be utterly loyal and faithful to our Kings; same with God.
Of course, that makes me wonder: what happened to world-changing religious innovation after Islam?
Well, there's Bahai, Mormonism, and a few other faiths, but I see your point.
It may be connected to the way the monotheistic religions centralized power; they suppressed the kind of dissent that might have led to religious innovation.
Maybe we've forgotten that was Deity's (meant to refer to whatever the true nature of the divine is) point behind religious belief in the first place; we were supposed to construct new religions to go along with new technological and social advances so that our connection to those spiritual forces remained strong and would not be lost due to obsolescence. Our innovations were meant to reveal more about Deity because they would shape new religious traditions and help us to understand it better, but instead we just forgot about them and caused them to stagnate.
The problem with this line of logic is that it implies that the sort of ideology implied by religious hierarchies was once justifiable. I don't think that's true.
And why give us something imperfect and corruptible, anyway?
Yar. I'm not sure what happened. It seems like a few religions got so popular that they just kind of shut out all other religion.
I think popularity led to complacency, which eventually resulted in stagnation. When the ideas were new, there was a lot of debate and conflict that shaped the belief system and made it strong and dynamic; unfortunately, as religion became more centralized and defined that evolution stopped and we started to stagnate.
I mean, the reason why faith deteriorated so badly during the 18th and 19th centuries was probably because of a combination of the dogmatism and resistance to change in organized religion and the significant economic and social changes of the Enlightenment, market capitalism, and the Industrial Revolution which led to a sense of anomie that eroded the basis of faith.
It's as least as possible as all of this being random...
Fair enough. I'm merely of the mind that if it hasn't been proven, I can't accept it. Mainly because of my sheer inability to accept anything on faith. I just can't, no matter how much I try.
Undoubtedly. We are ruled by Kings, so we make God a King. Our Kings make laws and punish us for misdeeds; so does God. We are supposed to be utterly loyal and faithful to our Kings; same with God.
And, of course, it's easy to see how the two became meshed in concepts like the divinity of the king/emperor, which was eventually translated in to the Divine Right of Kings once polytheism was on the wane.
Well, there's Bahai, Mormonism, and a few other faiths, but I see your point.
And Bahai is one of the few that has a fairly significant number of followers (around 7-10 million I think). It's fast growing, but not at the kind of rates that would enable it to unseat Christianity or Islam.
It may be connected to the way the monotheistic religions centralized power; they suppressed the kind of dissent that might have led to religious innovation.
I would say so. There is simply a lot stronger commitment to free thought and real, rigorous contemplation of beliefs in the dharmic religions that doesn't exist in the monotheistic ones.
This might be a product of the monotheists being able to centralize their power rather than by virtue of their monotheistic beliefs; monism and henotheism (among other systems) do provide easy methods of syncretism between polytheistic beliefs, but it seems like they preferred to focus on establishing themselves as true rather than trying to accommodate other beliefs in to their established ones.
The problem with this line of logic is that it implies that the sort of ideology implied by religious hierarchies was once justifiable. I don't think that's true.
It might have been out of necessity rather than justifiability; mankind's levels of social and political development during the rise of Christianity or Islam might not have been able to comprehend or appreciate more contemporary ideas, and so those beliefs had to be compromised out of necessity to allow them to be established in some form.
It's probably a case where the negative effects of not having that particular religious hierarchy, at the time, would have had a lot more negative effects than positive ones. It's also possible that there was a need for that kind of hierarchal society at the time; perhaps without it society would not have had the stability necessary to escape it later and would have remained stuck in an autocratic, hierarchial form.
And why give us something imperfect and corruptible, anyway?
Perhaps because we're supposed to earn truth and perfection (or as close an approximation as possible) rather than just be given it; if we were given a definite and perfect religious tradition that was unquestionably the word of God, we would not be free to choose and shape our beliefs.
If man were perfect from the start, it would seem that our lives would be both limited and would lose a significant purpose.
Fair enough. I'm merely of the mind that if it hasn't been proven, I can't accept it. Mainly because of my sheer inability to accept anything on faith. I just can't, no matter how much I try.
Well, don't you accept the idea you can't accept anything on faith on faith?
However, the key is to use whatever works best for you; I think you will have a much more meaningful and insightful life if you follow the philosophy that is best for you rather than trying to conform to someone else's interpretation.
Soviet Haaregrad
18-11-2006, 09:29
I used to say the same thing! I mocked the Romans and Greeks for their simplistic views on the whys and hows of life - "Lightning comes from the sky, so the god of lightning must be the controller of it - when it hits someone, it was an attack from the god of lightning!" but then when really thought about, it kind of makes sense. I think, of course, that the god of lightning must have more on his plate than simply ruling over lightning and thunder - I believe the gods more or less patron over nouns and adjectives so that they can better describe and rule over the world.
So the "God of Lightning" is replaced with the "God of Anger", and is split into sub-gods that rule over lightning, volcanos, floods, rain, etc.
I just don't believe in magic faeries ruling over things. :D
That said, you aren't hurting anyone, feel free to continue.
I just don't believe in magic faeries ruling over things. :D
I guess we'll never know for sure.
It might have been out of necessity rather than justifiability; mankind's levels of social and political development during the rise of Christianity or Islam might not have been able to comprehend or appreciate more contemporary ideas, and so those beliefs had to be compromised out of necessity to allow them to be established in some form.
The ideas are not contemporary (well, our current formulations of them are contemporary, but the ideas themselves are not). They have been around throughout human history. Indeed, essential egalitarianism was the original human social arrangement. If anything, it is hierarchy that is the latecomer.
The history of hierarchy and centralization is also the history of resistance to hierarchy and centralization. I don't see why a genuinely good divine being would have taken the side of the powerful.
It's probably a case where the negative effects of not having that particular religious hierarchy, at the time, would have had a lot more negative effects than positive ones. It's also possible that there was a need for that kind of hierarchal society at the time; perhaps without it society would not have had the stability necessary to escape it later and would have remained stuck in an autocratic, hierarchial form.
One possible explanation is that the revelation was intended to mitigate the effects of existing hierarchies, but even that doesn't seem very compelling; the tendency has been, if anything, for religion to do the opposite, to justify the prevailing social order and provide a veil for egregious abuses.
Perhaps because we're supposed to earn truth and perfection (or as close an approximation as possible) rather than just be given it; if we were given a definite and perfect religious tradition that was unquestionably the word of God, we would not be free to choose and shape our beliefs.
Sure we would. We would be perfectly capable of choosing whether or not to abide by it.
If man were perfect from the start, it would seem that our lives would be both limited and would lose a significant purpose.
I don't see the limitation. As for "purpose," there are other pursuits - interaction with others, the attainment of knowledge, intellectual contemplation - that can serve just as well as moral perfection, and that do not require the sort of harm that is accompanied by moral imperfection.
Well, don't you accept the idea you can't accept anything on faith on faith?
However, the key is to use whatever works best for you; I think you will have a much more meaningful and insightful life if you follow the philosophy that is best for you rather than trying to conform to someone else's interpretation.
I agree with you completely. I'm an athiest. I don't have a spiritual part to my life, and I prefer it that way. I am my own person. Thing is, I try to explain this to my parents, and they refuse to listen. They feel that a person MUST have a spiritual aspect to his life. They don't care what it is, just that it is there. And no matter what, I can't get them to listen. ~_~
1 Samuel Chapter 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=8&version=46)
Has some interesting implications for our discussion.
The ideas are not contemporary (well, our current formulations of them are contemporary, but the ideas themselves are not). They have been around throughout human history. Indeed, essential egalitarianism was the original human social arrangement. If anything, it is hierarchy that is the latecomer.
I wonder if organized religion came before or after hierarchy, or if they more or less emerged simultaneously? It would provide a difference perspective on the concept for each depending on what the answer to that question was.
The history of hierarchy and centralization is also the history of resistance to hierarchy and centralization. I don't see why a genuinely good divine being would have taken the side of the powerful.
Unless that divine being saw the repeated rise and fall of hierarchy (and the gradual trend towards its weakening over time) as the means to eliminating hierarchy altogether. That could be a good action that required the use of short-term centralization to achieve its goal of ultimate decentralization.
One possible explanation is that the revelation was intended to mitigate the effects of existing hierarchies, but even that doesn't seem very compelling; the tendency has been, if anything, for religion to do the opposite, to justify the prevailing social order and provide a veil for egregious abuses.
Well, generally it seems that religion becomes a justification after it has become complacent and dogmatic; however, for that matter a lot of ideas have fallen in to the same trap, especially those seen as revolutionary when they are developed. At the same time, however, those ideas which maximize personal freedom also avoid the problem of stagnation, abuse, and use for enforcing social order.
Perhaps it's the curse of an unfinished idea; it seems like most of the ideas that have this problem are revolutionary but have flaws that prevent them from working. At the same time, ideas which have been refined to a certain point can avoid the trap of dogmatism and stagnation and survive as well as change. Religion is currently an unfinished idea, so possibly we are still working on getting to the point where it can thrive.
Sure we would. We would be perfectly capable of choosing whether or not to abide by it.
Well, here's a question: can human beings disobey something that is proven to be perfectly true?
I don't see the limitation. As for "purpose," there are other pursuits - interaction with others, the attainment of knowledge, intellectual contemplation - that can serve just as well as moral perfection, and that do not require the sort of harm that is accompanied by moral imperfection.
I imagine perfection would require more than just moral perfection; you can't be truly perfect, or even approach perfection without being nearly or totally perfect in all aspects of your being.
In this case, attainment of knowledge is and of itself a morally right action because it enables us to perceive the nature of God and to broaden our purpose to encompass more ideas and experiences. And if free contemplation and knowledge are morally right, it's not hard to make the conclusion that the expansion of freedom is also morally right.
I agree with you completely. I'm an athiest. I don't have a spiritual part to my life, and I prefer it that way. I am my own person. Thing is, I try to explain this to my parents, and they refuse to listen. They feel that a person MUST have a spiritual aspect to his life. They don't care what it is, just that it is there. And no matter what, I can't get them to listen. ~_~
I think you'll run in to some problems if you try to justifiy everything without a spiritual component, but if you assume (correctly) that some truths are unknowable you can simply remain unsure of the whole thing and go from there. Ethics and morality can be tricky, but you can justify them to a point with reason and try to find justifications through your own thought on the matter.
After all, in Buddhism the Buddha's answer to whether or not God exists was silence. It was an unanswerable question, and speculation about it just led to suffering.
I think you'll run in to some problems if you try to justifiy everything without a spiritual component, but if you assume (correctly) that some truths are unknowable you can simply remain unsure of the whole thing and go from there. Ethics and morality can be tricky, but you can justify them to a point with reason and try to find justifications through your own thought on the matter.
After all, in Buddhism the Buddha's answer to whether or not God exists was silence. It was an unanswerable question, and speculation about it just led to suffering.
When it comes to morals and ethics, I form them out of what makes logical sense to me. For instance, I hold sentient life as...well, the closest equivelant to what I mean is sacred, though that word isn't the one I'd use if I could avoid it. I feel this way because, as an athiest, I recognize--from my viewpoint--that there is no afterlife, no reincarnation, no nothing. You die, that's it, that's all, game over. Hence, life should not be taken away unless it is impossible to avoid.
I think part of my inability to take anything on faith is my extreme dislike for religious institutions. I don't respect very many people when it comes to their religious beliefs because few actually hold true to the tenets of their religion, much like the institutions rarely do so. I do, however, respect greatly those who actually do uphold the tenents of their religion. (I also find religions like Buddhism more palatable than the Abrahamic religions. If I WERE to be anything, it would probably be Buddhist.)
The other issue I have with them is intolorance. Though I am not entirely certain why I am so tolorant(theories on explaining this range from watching Star Trek since I was a baby to hearing tolorant viewpoints from my parents to simple genetics--though that last one is unlikely at best) I do know that I cannot stand intolorance from people. Whenever I see someone professing how homosexuality is wrong, for instance, I just become enraged. I find it extremely difficult to argue without emotion against people who espouse intolorant views. It's just how I am. I, frankly, would not be surprised if my inability to take things on faith directly resulted from my extreme dislike of religious institutions.
I wonder if organized religion came before or after hierarchy, or if they more or less emerged simultaneously? It would provide a difference perspective on the concept for each depending on what the answer to that question was.
I would assume that they paralleled one another. Religion is pretty much a universal trait among human societies, at least until very modern times, but its forms have always been parallel to the social conditions in which it manifests itself.
Unless that divine being saw the repeated rise and fall of hierarchy (and the gradual trend towards its weakening over time) as the means to eliminating hierarchy altogether. That could be a good action that required the use of short-term centralization to achieve its goal of ultimate decentralization.
But why support its creation and extension in the first place, when there were alternatives?
Well, generally it seems that religion becomes a justification after it has become complacent and dogmatic; however, for that matter a lot of ideas have fallen in to the same trap, especially those seen as revolutionary when they are developed.
The difference between religion and, say, socialism is that no one claims that socialism is anything but a human creation (not exactly true, but close enough). Its creators were human, its development was human, and its flaws are those of humans. But once you say that religion is revelation from the divine, the task becomes more difficult. Why does the divine avoid revealing some things? Why is the revelation imperfect? Why doesn't it continue, with the divine ensuring that no egregious flaws are inserted? Clearly, whatever gods exist are capable of speaking to humans - why not inform the religious leaders when they have done something stupid and immoral, like endorse exploitative social orders or condemn movements for reform?
At the same time, however, those ideas which maximize personal freedom also avoid the problem of stagnation, abuse, and use for enforcing social order.
No, they fall into the same trap. By venerating the individual as free of obligation to others, they end up justifying unjust social orders just as much as the centralized religions do.
The only way to escape the trap is to have strong moral convictions to supplement, and provide a basis for, ideological convictions - moral convictions based on compassion and love for others.
Well, here's a question: can human beings disobey something that is proven to be perfectly true?
Yes. The capacity of the human mind for denial is quite astounding. And if I am actually convinced of something, then my obedience to it is perfectly free.
Not to mention the fact that even if morality is objective, there is no reason to suppose that our knowledge of our obligation translates into our willingness to fulfill our obligation. We all do things we believe are wrong.
I imagine perfection would require more than just moral perfection; you can't be truly perfect, or even approach perfection without being nearly or totally perfect in all aspects of your being.
In this case, attainment of knowledge is and of itself a morally right action because it enables us to perceive the nature of God and to broaden our purpose to encompass more ideas and experiences. And if free contemplation and knowledge are morally right, it's not hard to make the conclusion that the expansion of freedom is also morally right.
Okay, but then we could have moral imperfection without the harm of unfreedom. It doesn't solve the problem, because we could be far more morally perfect than we are now while still having a meaningful purpose and a source of meaning in our lives.
When it comes to morals and ethics, I form them out of what makes logical sense to me. For instance, I hold sentient life as...well, the closest equivelant to what I mean is sacred, though that word isn't the one I'd use if I could avoid it. I feel this way because, as an athiest, I recognize--from my viewpoint--that there is no afterlife, no reincarnation, no nothing. You die, that's it, that's all, game over. Hence, life should not be taken away unless it is impossible to avoid.
I think the problem is that is also faith-based argument; any supposition about the supernatural is based upon faith, so you're going to be forced to espouse some form of a non-logically based belief system in order for atheism or disbelief in the supernatural to work. You can't prove or disprove it, so you've either got the option of being unsure, simply considering it a nonquestion or irrelevant, or committing to one side of the debate with a faith-based belief system.
Nontheism would be the most logically tenable position, in my opinion. However, you also have the problem that the most logical might also not be the best. It requires a lot of thought to really make any decision on the matter.
I think part of my inability to take anything on faith is my extreme dislike for religious institutions. I don't respect very many people when it comes to their religious beliefs because few actually hold true to the tenets of their religion, much like the institutions rarely do so. I do, however, respect greatly those who actually do uphold the tenents of their religion. (I also find religions like Buddhism more palatable than the Abrahamic religions. If I WERE to be anything, it would probably be Buddhist.)
Well, faith is a condition of our very reality; your existence and conception of reality is ultimately based upon some form of faith in all of its different aspects. It's not the faith you're hostile to, it's the dogmatism that those faiths tend to produce that bothers you. Spiritual beliefs can and should be constructed by you as an individual; you can use those traditions as inspiration (and I imagine you wouldn't ...neither would I for that matter) or you can construct them yourself.
The other issue I have with them is intolorance. Though I am not entirely certain why I am so tolorant(theories on explaining this range from watching Star Trek since I was a baby to hearing tolorant viewpoints from my parents to simple genetics--though that last one is unlikely at best) I do know that I cannot stand intolorance from people. Whenever I see someone professing how homosexuality is wrong, for instance, I just become enraged. I find it extremely difficult to argue without emotion against people who espouse intolorant views. It's just how I am. I, frankly, would not be surprised if my inability to take things on faith directly resulted from my extreme dislike of religious institutions.
Well, that's why you really should try to reduce or redirect that hostility from faith towards the institutions that produced it in the first place; it doesn't make sense to close yourself off from investigating faith because of those religions. I think the problem is that too many people think of faith and organized religion as the same thing; organized religion needs faith, but faith doesn't need organized religion.
In some ways, it also seems like your atheism is more of a backlash against religious institutions than a conviction in itself. I'd really recommend just thinking it over and seeing what you truly know, and going from there.
That's the thing, though. I've tried that. I've tried going with various other faiths. I've tried various forms of paganism, polytheism, and others, and yet everytime I always return to being an athiest. While I suspect my inability to take things on faith originated in my dislike for religious institutions, it still lives on its own, if you see what I mean. (I'm not finding the words I want, but then, it's 2:30 A.M., so I'm kinda tired.)
I would assume that they paralleled one another. Religion is pretty much a universal trait among human societies, at least until very modern times, but its forms have always been parallel to the social conditions in which it manifests itself.
So we would probably end up with a chicken-egg question that couldn't be decoupled from each other; that's a challenge, but one that makes sense given that religious beliefs are held by people, and those people are part of a society of some form. It's not hard to see how one affects the other.
But why support its creation and extension in the first place, when there were alternatives?
Perhaps because enforcing the other ones would limit free will, or would limit it beyond what that Deity saw as most beneficial to human beings. It's also possible that a greater good may come from this than from choosing those alternatives in the first place.
Or, possibly, discovering God is a trial and error process to begin with. It has no control over what we do, so we may ultimately end up having to learn the hard way rather than be handed a flawless, justified, and preordained set of instructions.
The difference between religion and, say, socialism is that no one claims that socialism is anything but a human creation (not exactly true, but close enough). Its creators were human, its development was human, and its flaws are those of humans. But once you say that religion is revelation from the divine, the task becomes more difficult. Why does the divine avoid revealing some things? Why is the revelation imperfect? Why doesn't it continue, with the divine ensuring that no egregious flaws are inserted? Clearly, whatever gods exist are capable of speaking to humans - why not inform the religious leaders when they have done something stupid and immoral, like endorse exploitative social orders or condemn movements for reform?
Well, according to some belief systems socialism could be of divine origin; the Sumerians, for example, had a concept of me that were specific facets of knowledge given by the Gods to man for whatever purpose they were given. Of course, this is just one interpretation albeit interesting when viewed through concepts like memetics.
The divine may avoid revealing things because they would either be incomprehensible or destructive to the society of the time, impairing the attainment of more freedom in the long run. The revelation is imperfect because it is both limited and interpreted by imperfect human beings, and it doesn't continue because that would most likely lead to even worse stagnation than we have now.
Also, the deities might only be capable of limited communication to begin with; enough to set things in to motion or lay down some basic rules, but unable to do more than that. I imagine it also ties in to free will, perhaps some particular objective level of divine interference that optimizes it.
No, they fall into the same trap. By venerating the individual as free of obligation to others, they end up justifying unjust social orders just as much as the centralized religions do.
The only way to escape the trap is to have strong moral convictions to supplement, and provide a basis for, ideological convictions - moral convictions based on compassion and love for others.
Exactly.
And that's what all religions do have as their basis; all religions' primary commandment is a variation of loving others and acting compassionately towards others as part of your dedication to God.
It's really what exists beyond that that seems to lead to problems; no religious fanatic murders in the name of love or compassion but rather in the name of nonexistent evils developed by men. Interestingly, though, it seems like all of the commands beyond those dealing with compassion and love for others (and honesty/fidelity as well) were the product of man rather than of God. It may even be imperfect man corrupting the basic teachings given to us from the beginning and us working to reverse that corruption to discover the truths beneath it.
Yes. The capacity of the human mind for denial is quite astounding. And if I am actually convinced of something, then my obedience to it is perfectly free.
Not to mention the fact that even if morality is objective, there is no reason to suppose that our knowledge of our obligation translates into our willingness to fulfill our obligation. We all do things we believe are wrong.
True.
Perhaps that is our ultimate test; to be confronted with the absolute truth, perhaps even an objective standard of the truest and most basic good and evil and to accept or reject it; I think the aforementioned love and compassion are very close to what that truth entails, and our decision to live according to those concepts is the ultimate expression of both free will as well as our choice of good vs. evil. We are truly free to embrace that or to reject it, and we are responsible for the ramifications of that action.
Okay, but then we could have moral imperfection without the harm of unfreedom. It doesn't solve the problem, because we could be far more morally perfect than we are now while still having a meaningful purpose and a source of meaning in our lives.
Yes, which is interesting because it means God as a perfect being does have purpose and meaning and is perfectly free; even his decisions are not arbitrary. That also helps to provide a solid answer to the question of why God created the universe at all.
So we would probably end up with a chicken-egg question that couldn't be decoupled from each other; that's a challenge, but one that makes sense given that religious beliefs are held by people, and those people are part of a society of some form. It's not hard to see how one affects the other.
I didn't mean to imply that religion caused hierarchy. The causal relation is almost certainly the reverse; secular hierarchy caused religious hierarchy. Religions tend not to cause social change in and of themselves; they merely are brought along with it. But religious hierarchy justified and strengthened secular hierarchy.
Perhaps because enforcing the other ones would limit free will, or would limit it beyond what that Deity saw as most beneficial to human beings.
The only people "enforcing" anything would have been the people imposing hierarchy.
It's also possible that a greater good may come from this than from choosing those alternatives in the first place.
Possible, yes, but I don't see it as particularly likely.
Or, possibly, discovering God is a trial and error process to begin with. It has no control over what we do, so we may ultimately end up having to learn the hard way rather than be handed a flawless, justified, and preordained set of instructions.
It would indeed make more sense if we ourselves were the ones tasked with the project, rather than the source being divine revelation. But if that is the case, why not grant human beings divine revelation?
Well, according to some belief systems socialism could be of divine origin; the Sumerians, for example, had a concept of me that were specific facets of knowledge given by the Gods to man for whatever purpose they were given. Of course, this is just one interpretation albeit interesting when viewed through concepts like memetics.
What's the connection to socialism?
But, yes, I know that it can be argued that socialism was divinely inspired, but since most socialists do not subscribe to this point of view, it is not something imbedded in the ideology the way it is in religion.
The divine may avoid revealing things because they would either be incomprehensible or destructive to the society of the time, impairing the attainment of more freedom in the long run.
I just don't like this answer; perhaps it is because I am a stubborn, narrow-minded anarchist. I just can't conceive of good reasons for keeping the ideology of centralized power in place; what destruction would the alternatives have caused?
The revelation is imperfect because it is both limited and interpreted by imperfect human beings, and it doesn't continue because that would most likely lead to even worse stagnation than we have now.
Why would it?
Also, the deities might only be capable of limited communication to begin with; enough to set things in to motion or lay down some basic rules, but unable to do more than that.
Perhaps. I have held for a while that the only way to coherently conceive of a divine and benevolent being is to abolish the omnipotence clause.
Exactly.
And that's what all religions do have as their basis; all religions' primary commandment is a variation of loving others and acting compassionately towards others as part of your dedication to God.
It's really what exists beyond that that seems to lead to problems; no religious fanatic murders in the name of love or compassion but rather in the name of nonexistent evils developed by men. Interestingly, though, it seems like all of the commands beyond those dealing with compassion and love for others (and honesty/fidelity as well) were the product of man rather than of God. It may even be imperfect man corrupting the basic teachings given to us from the beginning and us working to reverse that corruption to discover the truths beneath it.
And that is an interesting way to twist the Garden of Eden story.
(What shames Adam and Eve after they eat the apple from the tree? Their nakedness. Is their nakedness bad? If it were, why did God tolerate it?)
Find me an anarchist pantheon and maybe I'll consider it. (Hah, maybe I'll just make one up. That might be fun.)
As it stands, I find the hierarchical notions implicit in most varieties of deity-worship, whatever the quantity, too offensive to consider any such thing.
Yeah, I tend to agree with that, myself. I'm working on a science fiction/quasi-fantasy novel now that actually does include what might be called an anarchist pantheon, though the gods are killed in a massive cataclysm that results in the creation of the universe (it's a long story, really). The concept of polytheism as it's usually defined seems pretty farfetched to me, though. Why would the gods resemble aspects of human society so closely (mythology, whether monotheist or polytheist, always seems to show a suspicious tie to the culture it came from)?