| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"WCB" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2005 05:55:20 PM |
| Object: |
Classes of gods |
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
The gods of Judaism, Christianity, Islam
for example are a class of gods.
This god, which I labelled the Grand God is:
1. Personal with will and conciousness.
2. Free will
3. Omnipotence
4. Omni-benevolence
5. Omni-science
6. Greater than anything that can be imagined.
Debunk the class as possible and one debunks all
possible specific gods of that class. This is rather efficient.
What I am tossing out for discussion is other class of gods.
Other classes I can think of.
B. Emanated gods.
Hesiod, the Greek collector of Greek Myths (about 600 BCE)
wrote of the Titans, the original gods.
They are emanated from the mysterious void, the chaos and
become the first gods. These have a beginning. The Titans
give rise to the Olympians, who displace them. This sort
of emanated god is not all powerful.
The Bible may well show Yahweh as a god that uses the
pre-existing waters of the void as a building material.
C. Olympian gods or Successor gods.
The battle between the Titan and Olmpians ends with the victory of
the Olympians.
We see this sort of succesor god in Semititic mythology,
Tiamat is destroyed by Amrduk who creates the sky from her body.
Gods that are successors to primeval gods who they defeat.
D. Myth cycle gods. - Heirachial gods.
These sort of gods usually start with a few gods who soon populate
the world with lessor gods. El and his 70 sons in the Nuzi tablet myths
for example. Not emanated, nor derived from primitive gods,
these myth cycles start with a creator god who creates other gods who
create the world around us. many middle eatern religions have a myth cycle
like this. The El myth cyccle has a battle for dominance of lessor gods,
Baal wins out here but is limited by El's wife Ashtoreth.
Many Semitic myth cycles devolve into long shaggy dog tales.
Japanese Shnito religious texts seem to follow this pattern.
E.
Soter gods. Gods who die in their battles with lessor gods and become
saviors of mankind. Osisris, slain by the lessor god Seth is the prinme
example, Tammus, and others follow a similar pattern.
F. Nature gods. The gods of ancient Rome and Greece outside
of the cities proper. Small godlets that regulate nature. Responsible
for rain , crops, fertility and flocks. Their nature was not originally
noted, but later Olympians god myths had these nature myths grafted onto
them. Of course science has removed the need for them.
G. Henotheistic gods. It was long accepted by many that each nation
had its own gods who were powerful in their lands but not elsewhere.
Kemosh, Yahweh, Qadesh, and other local gods and their retinues
were accepted as existant, though one god may in some circumstances prove
more powerful than another.
The theology behind this type of god never seems to have been
stated or explained by anybody then. As larger empires such
as the Hittites, Assyrians and Babylonians began overrunning their
neighbors, they gave credit to their gods for defeating lessor gods,
who became client gods.
H. Maya gods.
Maya means illusion, and some theologies saw the world
as an illusion in the minds of a single god. All was really one.
We are seperated from the Universal soul, atman, and our
atman has the goal to rejoin the Universal Atman, universal soul.
I. Demiurges.
Some theologies claim god created a perfect Universe without matter,
pain or suffering. Evil demiurges created this world of matter
and its imprefections.
J. Hero gods.
Some religions posit a half mortal, half human entity,
that often is seen as a guide for human kind.
Hercules, Jesus, Samson, Mithra, others.
K. Animistic gods.
Animistic religions, closely related to nature religions, see
the world filled with small gods, some more powerful than others,
some good, some evil. Many African religions and South American
descendents are of this type. Many different mythologies
abound and creation stories.
L. Lares and penitates
Many religions have the deceased as ghosts, in roman
religion, lares were good spirits prayed to for help,
penitates were bad spirits prayed to to stop their
activities. Christianity adopted these ideas as saints.
Chinese 'ancestor worship' often has a similar rationale,
other cultures have had similar ideas.
This can coexist with other religious traditions.
Comments, ideas, additions, complaints?
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
20 Aug 2005 06:21:43 PM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
The gods of Judaism, Christianity, Islam
for example are a class of gods.
This god, which I labelled the Grand God is:
1. Personal with will and conciousness.
2. Free will
3. Omnipotence
4. Omni-benevolence
5. Omni-science
6. Greater than anything that can be imagined.
Debunk the class as possible and one debunks all
possible specific gods of that class. This is rather efficient.
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the
background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the
debunking process." -- C.S. Lewis
Denny
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 12:39:44 AM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
WCB wrote:
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
The gods of Judaism, Christianity, Islam
for example are a class of gods.
This god, which I labelled the Grand God is:
1. Personal with will and conciousness.
2. Free will
3. Omnipotence
4. Omni-benevolence
5. Omni-science
6. Greater than anything that can be imagined.
Debunk the class as possible and one debunks all
possible specific gods of that class. This is rather efficient.
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the
background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the
debunking process." -- C.S. Lewis
Denny
I am not debunking values, I debunk claims.
And if the opposition can debunk my claims, go for it.
That has not happened yet.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
20 Aug 2005 06:27:34 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
WCB wrote:
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
The gods of Judaism, Christianity, Islam
for example are a class of gods.
This god, which I labelled the Grand God is:
1. Personal with will and conciousness.
2. Free will
3. Omnipotence
4. Omni-benevolence
5. Omni-science
6. Greater than anything that can be imagined.
Debunk the class as possible and one debunks all
possible specific gods of that class. This is rather efficient.
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the
background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the
debunking process." -- C.S. Lewis
One more astute observation by Eric Hoffer:
“When we debunk a fanatical faith or prejudice, we do not strike at the
root of fanaticism. We merely prevent its leaking out at a certain
point, with the likely result that it will leak out at some other point.
Thus by denigrating prevailing beliefs and loyalties, the militant man
of words unwittingly creates in the disillusioned masses a hunger for
faith. For the majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and
futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication, or some
passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves. Thus, in spite of
himself, the scoffing man of words becomes the precursor of a new
faith.”
Denny
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
20 Aug 2005 11:33:56 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4307BC66.DFDA4B16@nospam.net...
dgillesp wrote:
WCB wrote:
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
The gods of Judaism, Christianity, Islam
for example are a class of gods.
This god, which I labelled the Grand God is:
1. Personal with will and conciousness.
2. Free will
3. Omnipotence
4. Omni-benevolence
5. Omni-science
6. Greater than anything that can be imagined.
Debunk the class as possible and one debunks all
possible specific gods of that class. This is rather efficient.
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the
background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the
debunking process." -- C.S. Lewis
One more astute observation by Eric Hoffer:
"When we debunk a fanatical faith or prejudice, we do not strike at the
root of fanaticism. We merely prevent its leaking out at a certain
point, with the likely result that it will leak out at some other point.
Thus by denigrating prevailing beliefs and loyalties, the militant man
of words unwittingly creates in the disillusioned masses a hunger for
faith. For the majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and
futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication, or some
passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves. Thus, in spite of
himself, the scoffing man of words becomes the precursor of a new
faith."
So what's the solution provided by this guy?
How DO you wipe out fanatical faith?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
20 Aug 2005 07:29:45 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
<snip>
One more astute observation by Eric Hoffer:
"When we debunk a fanatical faith or prejudice, we do not strike at the
root of fanaticism. We merely prevent its leaking out at a certain
point, with the likely result that it will leak out at some other point.
Thus by denigrating prevailing beliefs and loyalties, the militant man
of words unwittingly creates in the disillusioned masses a hunger for
faith. For the majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and
futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication, or some
passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves. Thus, in spite of
himself, the scoffing man of words becomes the precursor of a new
faith."
Denny
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Yep, people are free to try out all sorts of cults and sects and other
religious-ish activities now that the larger churches are seeming too
old-fashioned. But what's the suggested consequence of your quotation?
Debunking fanatical faith and prejudice still sounds like a good idea.
I think we should find constructive ways to change that feeling of
barrenness and futility that your guy says people experience. I think
that means we need things that create community and that help people
find satisfying and achievable things to do with their lives.
If the word 'God' helps achieve those goals, then let's use it. The
word has become very ambiguous and loaded down with bad associations
(since so many woolly thinkers and nutbars have overused it) but we
probably need something like it in our vocabulary to describe, you
know, the whole kaboodle of hope and nature and ourselves and all
things good.
T
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 09:40:54 AM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
[Interesting classification. Snip for length only.]
Comments, ideas, additions, complaints?
Have you read /Religion Explained/? (Pascal Boyer, 2001,
New York: Basic Books or London: Heinemann)
Boyer sheds some light on the mechanics of religious belief, why
religious beliefs are one way and not another, etc, linking them
to how we now know the brain works.
For example, our human minds have a person scorecard (or
something -- I don't remember the technical term) by which we keep
track of our interactions with people in our lives. When someone
close to us dies, our mind/brain inevitably holds the account
open for a while -- thus the feeling that Grandma is around
somewhere, even when you know for a fact that she isn't. This
feeling (in part) promotes ideas like ghosts, souls, ancestral
spirits and so on.
I see nothing wrong with your project; in fact, I find all the
categories and reasons laid out nice and neat very amusing. But,
honestly, you're preaching to the choir here.
Some project like yours would be a very good thing, if it could
loosen the grip of fanatics on their diamond-hard certainties.
I don't think yours is the project that will do that, though.
(Of course, there's no requirement for it to do so, either.)
Boyer points out an interesting fact, easily checked: religious
believers, even the most fanatic, are not crazy. In every other
part of their life, they can be as skeptical as anyone, kicking
the tires, reading the fine print. It is only with these ideas
we call "religious" that the response to contrary evidence (like
fish fossils on mountain tops) is not to weaken belief but to
spin further elaborations. I'm guessing that your project, even
when completed, will just be more fish fossils piled on top of
what we've already discovered.
Boyer discusses why religions work -- that is, why they continue
from generation to generation or even grow. He says they fulfill
human needs, like getting /particular/ explanations rather than
/general/ ones. Grandma died because she was old, but why did she
die just then in that way? I think that whatever happens to
Christianity, Islam, local tribal beliefs about ancestral
spirits, and such, something like religion is with us for the
long haul. Folks mention that no one believes in Zeus any more,
but was he removed or just painted over with YHWH?
However, maybe we have a choice about what kind of "religion"
would be most common. I daydream about inventing a religion that
provides these explanations, and provides ceremonial structure
around life events and other things religion is good for -- but
that is very up-front about only being an invention, like
veneration of the IPU or Bokononism in /Cat's Cradle/. Maybe there
could be an explicit creed that says, in part, this is all made
up, don't kill anyone over it. Maybe that would put a stop to
suicide bombers and a stop to some even more clever outrage using
a technology that is now only a gleam in its inventor's eye.
Or maybe it won't. People are also very clever at warping beliefs
to their own use. "All animals are created equal, but some are
more equal than others." But I think it might be worth a try.
Sorry, I'm just running on here. My main point was that I doubt
we'll be able to get rid of religion, but that we might be able
to de-fang it with a flashy, chromed-out, 21st century
replacement.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 06:37:32 PM |
|
|
Jim Burns wrote:
WCB wrote:
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
[Interesting classification. Snip for length only.]
Comments, ideas, additions, complaints?
Have you read /Religion Explained/? (Pascal Boyer, 2001,
New York: Basic Books or London: Heinemann)
Boyer sheds some light on the mechanics of religious belief, why
religious beliefs are one way and not another, etc, linking them
to how we now know the brain works.
For example, our human minds have a person scorecard (or
something -- I don't remember the technical term) by which we keep
track of our interactions with people in our lives. When someone
close to us dies, our mind/brain inevitably holds the account
open for a while -- thus the feeling that Grandma is around
somewhere, even when you know for a fact that she isn't. This
feeling (in part) promotes ideas like ghosts, souls, ancestral
spirits and so on.
I have a few books on the mechanisms of religion.
But that is a bit off topic. I am sort of looking at categories
of gods.
I see nothing wrong with your project; in fact, I find all the
categories and reasons laid out nice and neat very amusing. But,
honestly, you're preaching to the choir here.
I wasn't preaching but looking of imput.
If I left out something good, or maybe need to tighten up a
definition here or there, I want somebody to point out my
errors, lacunae, or toss out ideas, bad or good.
I will be ruminationg on this for some time I suspect.
I have over the years been challenged by theists to disprove
ALL gods, a way usually to divert attention from specific
debunkings of their favorite god. This is a way to take up that
challenge and be able to let them take all the rope they want
when they do that.
Basically, the idea is to create a sort of zoo as it were,
of various main ideas of gods, much as a physicist has
a zoo of particles to work with. Baryons, fermions, et
al. categories, not mere lists of gods.
Done well enough, most gods could then be categorized by type.
And why the category doesn't work disposes of one more
possible god.
I did leave out possible ideas like pantheism, and deism
which overlap, and similar ideas. which I need to think
about more.
Some categories, ancestoral worship, lares and penitates and
similar do have as you pointed out, some reasonable mind
effects that give rise to such ideas. Near Death experinces and other
things also feed religion. But without sorting out categories of gods and
thus religions, its harder to think about these things.
We also assume religions are much the same, but this categorizations
shows its not, And I see bits of evidence that types of religions
have their day and are overtaken by new categories of gods and religions.
Olympian type myth gods and Semitic myth cycles died out 1600
years ago, which is interesting. The soter gods of Christianity and
Islam took over. Eschatalogical gods.
Which is interesting.
This type of omni-everything god is now the popular model.
Why Deism and pantheism failed is interesting after a promising
start in the late 1700's.
Some project like yours would be a very good thing, if it could
loosen the grip of fanatics on their diamond-hard certainties.
Or even if if told us wht they have those things.
I don't think yours is the project that will do that, though.
(Of course, there's no requirement for it to do so, either.)
Boyer points out an interesting fact, easily checked: religious
believers, even the most fanatic, are not crazy. In every other
part of their life, they can be as skeptical as anyone, kicking
the tires, reading the fine print. It is only with these ideas
we call "religious" that the response to contrary evidence (like
fish fossils on mountain tops) is not to weaken belief but to
spin further elaborations. I'm guessing that your project, even
when completed, will just be more fish fossils piled on top of
what we've already discovered.
Well, no, you seem the same thing with politics for example, I
see the same sort of thinking.
The far right types certainly are rigid as an Southern Baptist or
Moslem. Yu can find the same lack of thinking in pseudoscience,
astrology buffs or UFO believers.
Or science, enviromentalism vs the far right.
That goes deeper than religion in and of itself.
The net is a very good test tube for observing that once you are
aware of it.
Why some peolel get wedged that way and others don't is one
of those great mysteries I do not see why more scientific work is
not being done on that phenomenon.
Part of this is, various large categories of gods do have
problems as far as being debunkable. Its a matter of
starting to do the grunt work. I have never seen a project like
this, I am sure somebody somewhere out there has done something
similar, but not as far as I know with the same immediate end.
If somebody knew of similar, I was hoping to find out.
Plus there is intristict value in just having such a categoriation.
being able to see how a given god fits these categories helps
clarify the nature of that god and the religion it is imbedded in.
The Greek Olympians have many, many godlets and goddesses
that are mere personifications of human experiences. Obvioulsy
not meant to be taken as real as we tend to think of angels and Satan.
So these things give us clues to thought processes of
people of that time.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 09:58:26 PM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:
[...]
Have you read /Religion Explained/? (Pascal Boyer, 2001,
New York: Basic Books or London: Heinemann)
[...]
I have a few books on the mechanisms of religion.
But that is a bit off topic. I am sort of looking at categories
of gods.
I see nothing wrong with your project; in fact, I find all the
categories and reasons laid out nice and neat very amusing. But,
honestly, you're preaching to the choir here.
I wasn't preaching but looking of imput.
If I left out something good, or maybe need to tighten up a
definition here or there, I want somebody to point out my
errors, lacunae, or toss out ideas, bad or good.
I'm sorry I used the word "preaching" here; it clearly carries
too much of the wrong connotations. All I meant was that
alt.atheism in general and I in particular are a very easy
audience to convince. I thought the mismatch between its
conotations and where I was using it would be amusing, too.
The mechanisms of religious belief aren't obviously relevant
to your project. I only brought up Boyer because it seemed
like you were engaged in a similar sort of project (broadly
speaking), I found /Religion Explained/ fascinating, and I
felt like sharing. Nothing deeper than that.
However, this whole other topic of scientific explanations
for why gods are believed in may turn out to be useful to
you, after all. You seem to be focusing on inconsistencies
in various myths, either internally or with known historic
or scientific facts. Another style of "disproof" would be
giving a much better explanation for what we observe.
[In this case, I mean that we observe that people believe in
gods. Septic, I'm not saying we observe gods.]
You may say that this is a weaker form of proof, but, so far
as I know, there has been no stronger disproof for luminiferous
ether, caloric fluid, or elan vital, and yet those theories
are considered completely disproven today. Personally, I
think that sort of disproof carries more emotional impact
than an abstract argument about omniscience, omnipotence
and omnibenevolence.
At any rate, the less strict, more explanatory sort of
disproof might be something you want to add to your toolkit.
It couldn't hurt, at least.
[...]
We also assume religions are much the same, but this
categorizations shows its not, And I see bits of evidence that
types of religions have their day and are overtaken by new
categories of gods and religions.
You seem to be mapping out a sort of historical progression
of god-types. I don't think you are alone in seeing this.
I remember reading that there is a fairly rigid rule to
which colors have words for them, depending on where a society
stands on a a spectrum between hunting-gathering and space-
faring. It should be a lot less surprising if there is a
some correlation between some features a society and its
god-type.
I don't know how much you should credit this, but: Ages ago,
I took a class in World History. At one point, the instructor
described what she called the Axial Age -- when gods changed
from being for this valley or this tribe to being for the
whole world or the whole cosmos. (Vaguely recalling) Isaiah,
Zoroaster, Buddha, and maybe Confucius all lived within a
century or so of each other. The explanation I recall was that
this century was when the great overland trade routes were
developed; suddenly tribes for whom "the world" had meant
"us and those guys we raid sheep from" were faced with tales
from a much wider world -- and their gods stretched to
accomodate it.
My quasi-private theory is that we are currently in a second
Axial Age and that concepts of gods will stretch (have
stretched?) again to absorb effect of the Internet and all.
I think that the word "pagan" originally meant "rube" or "hick",
and that it came to mean those that still followed the Old
Religion (with merely local gods). I cheer myself up
sometimes by thinking of some future theists looking back
with horror on those "good folks" like Jerry Falwell
and Pat Robertson, much as those two look upon "pagans".
[...]
Why Deism and pantheism failed is interesting after a promising
start in the late 1700's.
If I had to guess, they were god-of-the-gap type of responses
to all the new science, but the gaps kept closing. It's
probably uncomfortable to have to read up in the latest journals
to see what god is like today.
[...]
Boyer points out an interesting fact, easily checked: religious
believers, even the most fanatic, are not crazy.
[...]
Well, no, you seem the same thing with politics for example, I
see the same sort of thinking.
The far right types certainly are rigid as an Southern Baptist or
Moslem. Yu can find the same lack of thinking in pseudoscience,
astrology buffs or UFO believers.
Or science, enviromentalism vs the far right.
That goes deeper than religion in and of itself.
The net is a very good test tube for observing that once you are
aware of it.
Why some peolel get wedged that way and others don't is one
of those great mysteries I do not see why more scientific work is
not being done on that phenomenon.
I agree, certainly on the first and third points. I haven't
really trawled the net for wierdness much, but I imagine you're
right about that, too.
"Why some people get wedged that way and others don't" is a
good way to put what I need for my own back-burner project:
a "religion" for the second Axial Age. Note to whomever:
Please don't flame. I suspect that, whatever religion turns
into after accomodating cosmology, quantum mechanics,
cognitive science and hundreds of cultures, it will be
compatible with atheism, unless it outright insists upon
atheism.
[...]
Thank you. Very interesting.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 11:50:38 PM |
|
|
Jim Burns wrote:
WCB wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:
[...]
Have you read /Religion Explained/? (Pascal Boyer, 2001,
New York: Basic Books or London: Heinemann)
[...]
I have a few books on the mechanisms of religion.
But that is a bit off topic. I am sort of looking at categories
of gods.
I see nothing wrong with your project; in fact, I find all the
categories and reasons laid out nice and neat very amusing. But,
honestly, you're preaching to the choir here.
I wasn't preaching but looking of imput.
If I left out something good, or maybe need to tighten up a
definition here or there, I want somebody to point out my
errors, lacunae, or toss out ideas, bad or good.
I'm sorry I used the word "preaching" here; it clearly carries
too much of the wrong connotations. All I meant was that
alt.atheism in general and I in particular are a very easy
audience to convince. I thought the mismatch between its
conotations and where I was using it would be amusing, too.
I wasn't so much as looking to 'convince' people such as
looking for ideas.
I have never seen a book that categorized varieties of gods
like this, but then I may simply not know the right books.
Maybe somebody else did.
There are probably people out there with more knowldege
than I about more esoteric Eatern/Indian concepts of god
as derived from various Vedas and other sources.
The Jain god is apparently fairly pantheistic.
I am shaking the bushes.
I am also considering additions as I think about this.
We have a secondary level to gods, for example we have
eschatological gods.
The Christian and Islamic theologies state there wil lbe an end
of the world and a judgment day. Which idea introduced theological
problems.
The mechanisms of religious belief aren't obviously relevant
to your project. I only brought up Boyer because it seemed
like you were engaged in a similar sort of project (broadly
speaking), I found /Religion Explained/ fascinating, and I
felt like sharing. Nothing deeper than that.
However, this whole other topic of scientific explanations
for why gods are believed in may turn out to be useful to
you, after all. You seem to be focusing on inconsistencies
in various myths, either internally or with known historic
or scientific facts. Another style of "disproof" would be
giving a much better explanation for what we observe.
I want to go deeper than mere mythical eccentricities.
That is why I like the class of god concept.
If you deal with the class of moni-everything, creator gods,
you do not have to bother with the particulars of islam or
Christianity of Judaism.
All that is moot.
Then any secondary or tertiary beliefs attached to such
conceptual god don't have to be debunked individually either.
For example if you realize that class of god cannot be as described, then
arguments as to whether Jesus was son of god, if trinitarianism is true
or if its and insult to Allah to state god had a son.
That's all irrelevant now.
This sort of systematic approach seems to be a good
way to deal with othewise complex situations that allow lots
of weasel word room.
I like it because it is efficient and systematic.
And if I am wrong about gods, I will find out with this approach, so
the theists can't complain that this approach is purely negative.
You don't be right by clinging to error and ending the search for truth.
[In this case, I mean that we observe that people believe in
gods. Septic, I'm not saying we observe gods.]
You may say that this is a weaker form of proof, but, so far
as I know, there has been no stronger disproof for luminiferous
ether, caloric fluid, or elan vital, and yet those theories
are considered completely disproven today. Personally, I
think that sort of disproof carries more emotional impact
than an abstract argument about omniscience, omnipotence
and omnibenevolence.
If an defined entity does not exist, and all we have is assertions,
we work with what we have. If these definitions create a self defeating
god, they should have noticed and found a better set of initial assertions.
Science works the same way. A physicist makes a hypothesis.
Hopefully he is not lazy and works to make sure his theory is not
somehow wrong. then he bounces the idea off of colleagues.
If they cannot shoot it down, he may talk about it at scientific
conferences. If nobody shoots it down, he may then write it up
for official publishing in a journal.
Theology sad to say, never seems to toss out bad ideas.
If there is a good idea, systematic search for ideas is the only
way to find it.
At any rate, the less strict, more explanatory sort of
disproof might be something you want to add to your toolkit.
It couldn't hurt, at least.
I am looking to stay with more formal if possible.
If I can simply eliminate an entire class broadly, I can
abandon that class and move on.
Of course most of these sorts of gods will not be
attractive to those brought up on the Grand God of
Grand Theology.
We did have attempts at Deism and pantheism, but that
never got popular outside a small class of intellectuals.
It has its problems too, Deism doesn't seem to fit a personal
god easily, and slides into pantheism. Pantheism is not
seemingly motionaly attractive to many.
But the emotional attractivness of religous concepts is
another subject matter anyway.
[...]
We also assume religions are much the same, but this
categorizations shows its not, And I see bits of evidence that
types of religions have their day and are overtaken by new
categories of gods and religions.
You seem to be mapping out a sort of historical progression
of god-types.
Not really. I just kind of see it but not enough to map it yet.
Except in major aspects hard to miss. Olympian - Successor gods
failed and were ailing as the new soter-omni-everthing gods took over.
But that is simply too obvious to miss. Doing a real survey
would tale a lot of heavy duty scholarship I haven't really done.
I see indications but I have to be careful.
Shamanistic/animistic gods are still around and have obvious
staying power. NeoPaganism is really more along the lines of Greek
allegorical gods, rather than nature gods. Lares and penitates,
saints, and minor healing gods were conflated in early Christianity
and had considerable staying power in parts of Europe.
The world of fairies and imps, pucs and other supernatural entities
had staying power, how do you fit that into religion?
Chinese folk religions also are hard to deal with, they change
rapidly.
I don't think you are alone in seeing this.
I remember reading that there is a fairly rigid rule to
which colors have words for them, depending on where a society
stands on a a spectrum between hunting-gathering and space-
faring. It should be a lot less surprising if there is a
some correlation between some features a society and its
god-type.
Almost assuredly. Religion in many Southern Indian
villages in Mexico is an odd thing. Sometimes it involves
getting roaring drunk. Bringing them into conflict, sometimes
bitter conflict with Catholic authorities. Sometimes religion
has ideas that are not well defined to outsiders. This may
well be the hangover of ancient attitudes and practices.
But its hard to deal with stuff like this if it isn't categorized.
I don't know how much you should credit this, but: Ages ago,
I took a class in World History. At one point, the instructor
described what she called the Axial Age -- when gods changed
from being for this valley or this tribe to being for the
whole world or the whole cosmos. (Vaguely recalling) Isaiah,
Zoroaster, Buddha, and maybe Confucius all lived within a
century or so of each other. The explanation I recall was that
this century was when the great overland trade routes were
developed; suddenly tribes for whom "the world" had meant
"us and those guys we raid sheep from" were faced with tales
from a much wider world -- and their gods stretched to
accomodate it.
My quasi-private theory is that we are currently in a second
Axial Age and that concepts of gods will stretch (have
stretched?) again to absorb effect of the Internet and all.
I think that the word "pagan" originally meant "rube" or "hick",
and that it came to mean those that still followed the Old
Religion (with merely local gods). I cheer myself up
sometimes by thinking of some future theists looking back
with horror on those "good folks" like Jerry Falwell
and Pat Robertson, much as those two look upon "pagans".
[...]
Why Deism and pantheism failed is interesting after a promising
start in the late 1700's.
If I had to guess, they were god-of-the-gap type of responses
to all the new science, but the gaps kept closing. It's
probably uncomfortable to have to read up in the latest journals
to see what god is like today.
[...]
Boyer points out an interesting fact, easily checked: religious
believers, even the most fanatic, are not crazy.
[...]
Well, no, you seem the same thing with politics for example, I
see the same sort of thinking.
The far right types certainly are rigid as an Southern Baptist or
Moslem. Yu can find the same lack of thinking in pseudoscience,
astrology buffs or UFO believers.
Or science, enviromentalism vs the far right.
That goes deeper than religion in and of itself.
The net is a very good test tube for observing that once you are
aware of it.
Why some peolel get wedged that way and others don't is one
of those great mysteries I do not see why more scientific work is
not being done on that phenomenon.
I agree, certainly on the first and third points. I haven't
really trawled the net for wierdness much, but I imagine you're
right about that, too.
"Why some people get wedged that way and others don't" is a
good way to put what I need for my own back-burner project:
a "religion" for the second Axial Age. Note to whomever:
Please don't flame. I suspect that, whatever religion turns
into after accomodating cosmology, quantum mechanics,
cognitive science and hundreds of cultures, it will be
compatible with atheism, unless it outright insists upon
atheism.
[...]
Thank you. Very interesting.
Jim Burns
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
20 Aug 2005 10:23:03 PM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
all gods are used by the clubs [religions] that humans need to belong to
the gods are simply there in an imaginary sense in order to cement
the whole gamut of man made mumbo jumbo together.
It's that simple
The gods of Judaism, Christianity, Islam
for example are a class of gods.
This god, which I labelled the Grand God is:
1. Personal with will and conciousness.
2. Free will
3. Omnipotence
4. Omni-benevolence
5. Omni-science
6. Greater than anything that can be imagined.
Debunk the class as possible and one debunks all
possible specific gods of that class. This is rather efficient.
What I am tossing out for discussion is other class of gods.
Other classes I can think of.
B. Emanated gods.
Hesiod, the Greek collector of Greek Myths (about 600 BCE)
wrote of the Titans, the original gods.
They are emanated from the mysterious void, the chaos and
become the first gods. These have a beginning. The Titans
give rise to the Olympians, who displace them. This sort
of emanated god is not all powerful.
The Bible may well show Yahweh as a god that uses the
pre-existing waters of the void as a building material.
C. Olympian gods or Successor gods.
The battle between the Titan and Olmpians ends with the victory of
the Olympians.
We see this sort of succesor god in Semititic mythology,
Tiamat is destroyed by Amrduk who creates the sky from her body.
Gods that are successors to primeval gods who they defeat.
D. Myth cycle gods. - Heirachial gods.
These sort of gods usually start with a few gods who soon populate
the world with lessor gods. El and his 70 sons in the Nuzi tablet myths
for example. Not emanated, nor derived from primitive gods,
these myth cycles start with a creator god who creates other gods who
create the world around us. many middle eatern religions have a myth cycle
like this. The El myth cyccle has a battle for dominance of lessor gods,
Baal wins out here but is limited by El's wife Ashtoreth.
Many Semitic myth cycles devolve into long shaggy dog tales.
Japanese Shnito religious texts seem to follow this pattern.
E.
Soter gods. Gods who die in their battles with lessor gods and become
saviors of mankind. Osisris, slain by the lessor god Seth is the prinme
example, Tammus, and others follow a similar pattern.
F. Nature gods. The gods of ancient Rome and Greece outside
of the cities proper. Small godlets that regulate nature. Responsible
for rain , crops, fertility and flocks. Their nature was not originally
noted, but later Olympians god myths had these nature myths grafted onto
them. Of course science has removed the need for them.
G. Henotheistic gods. It was long accepted by many that each nation
had its own gods who were powerful in their lands but not elsewhere.
Kemosh, Yahweh, Qadesh, and other local gods and their retinues
were accepted as existant, though one god may in some circumstances prove
more powerful than another.
The theology behind this type of god never seems to have been
stated or explained by anybody then. As larger empires such
as the Hittites, Assyrians and Babylonians began overrunning their
neighbors, they gave credit to their gods for defeating lessor gods,
who became client gods.
H. Maya gods.
Maya means illusion, and some theologies saw the world
as an illusion in the minds of a single god. All was really one.
We are seperated from the Universal soul, atman, and our
atman has the goal to rejoin the Universal Atman, universal soul.
I. Demiurges.
Some theologies claim god created a perfect Universe without matter,
pain or suffering. Evil demiurges created this world of matter
and its imprefections.
J. Hero gods.
Some religions posit a half mortal, half human entity,
that often is seen as a guide for human kind.
Hercules, Jesus, Samson, Mithra, others.
K. Animistic gods.
Animistic religions, closely related to nature religions, see
the world filled with small gods, some more powerful than others,
some good, some evil. Many African religions and South American
descendents are of this type. Many different mythologies
abound and creation stories.
L. Lares and penitates
Many religions have the deceased as ghosts, in roman
religion, lares were good spirits prayed to for help,
penitates were bad spirits prayed to to stop their
activities. Christianity adopted these ideas as saints.
Chinese 'ancestor worship' often has a similar rationale,
other cultures have had similar ideas.
This can coexist with other religious traditions.
Comments, ideas, additions, complaints?
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 12:55:46 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
WCB wrote:
I have posted recently about the existance
of god, and have attacked the idea of such
existance by attacking not a specific god,
but an entire class of gods.
all gods are used by the clubs [religions] that humans need to belong to
the gods are simply there in an imaginary sense in order to cement
the whole gamut of man made mumbo jumbo together.
It's that simple
But its not that simple, really. Especially looking at
claims by theists. We have different ideas of gods,
which parts are important, which not?
Theists often angrily claim I have not debunked all gods, I of
course merely debunk the god that is the biggest problem.
The Omni-everything creator god is an easy mark actually.
But to be fair, I am trying to look at other gods in the
concepts of classes of gods. We might find some gods fit
in overlapping possible classes.
To be fair to those theists who claim I have not disproven all
possible gods, I am willing to take a crack at it.
I hate to disappoint.
I suspect that sooner or later I will run into weaselling and
and looking at possible ways of doing that. Be prepared
and all that. I have from time to time considered this
project but haven't really done it in depth.
It is interesting some peole contend teh bible god
is like the Greek Titans, emanated, and working
with pre-existing matrial of a chaotic void.
And had its start as El, a myth cycle god. Quite different
from the Greek perfect god.
Or did I miss the idea of alt.atheism? Are we here to have
flame wars with Duke, Pastor Frank and Georgeann?
Nobody interested in something a little deeper?
I will continue alone of course, if nobody has any interest.
I can't gut, scale and clean ideas I haven't examined, and
so various classes of gods will be thought about and
categorized, developed and then debunked, just in the
name of fair play as per complaints of my Christian friends.
I prefer that to tossing one liners and feeble insults at xian jerks.
I will go back over my list so far and think about it, start polishing and
developing it.
The gods of Judaism, Christianity, Islam
for example are a class of gods.
This god, which I labelled the Grand God is:
1. Personal with will and conciousness.
2. Free will
3. Omnipotence
4. Omni-benevolence
5. Omni-science
6. Greater than anything that can be imagined.
Debunk the class as possible and one debunks all
possible specific gods of that class. This is rather efficient.
What I am tossing out for discussion is other class of gods.
Other classes I can think of.
B. Emanated gods.
Hesiod, the Greek collector of Greek Myths (about 600 BCE)
wrote of the Titans, the original gods.
They are emanated from the mysterious void, the chaos and
become the first gods. These have a beginning. The Titans
give rise to the Olympians, who displace them. This sort
of emanated god is not all powerful.
The Bible may well show Yahweh as a god that uses the
pre-existing waters of the void as a building material.
C. Olympian gods or Successor gods.
The battle between the Titan and Olmpians ends with the victory of
the Olympians.
We see this sort of succesor god in Semititic mythology,
Tiamat is destroyed by Amrduk who creates the sky from her body.
Gods that are successors to primeval gods who they defeat.
D. Myth cycle gods. - Heirachial gods.
These sort of gods usually start with a few gods who soon populate
the world with lessor gods. El and his 70 sons in the Nuzi tablet myths
for example. Not emanated, nor derived from primitive gods,
these myth cycles start with a creator god who creates other gods who
create the world around us. many middle eatern religions have a myth
cycle
like this. The El myth cyccle has a battle for dominance of lessor gods,
Baal wins out here but is limited by El's wife Ashtoreth.
Many Semitic myth cycles devolve into long shaggy dog tales.
Japanese Shnito religious texts seem to follow this pattern.
E.
Soter gods. Gods who die in their battles with lessor gods and become
saviors of mankind. Osisris, slain by the lessor god Seth is the prinme
example, Tammus, and others follow a similar pattern.
F. Nature gods. The gods of ancient Rome and Greece outside
of the cities proper. Small godlets that regulate nature. Responsible
for rain , crops, fertility and flocks. Their nature was not originally
noted, but later Olympians god myths had these nature myths grafted onto
them. Of course science has removed the need for them.
G. Henotheistic gods. It was long accepted by many that each nation
had its own gods who were powerful in their lands but not elsewhere.
Kemosh, Yahweh, Qadesh, and other local gods and their retinues
were accepted as existant, though one god may in some circumstances prove
more powerful than another.
The theology behind this type of god never seems to have been
stated or explained by anybody then. As larger empires such
as the Hittites, Assyrians and Babylonians began overrunning their
neighbors, they gave credit to their gods for defeating lessor gods,
who became client gods.
H. Maya gods.
Maya means illusion, and some theologies saw the world
as an illusion in the minds of a single god. All was really one.
We are seperated from the Universal soul, atman, and our
atman has the goal to rejoin the Universal Atman, universal soul.
I. Demiurges.
Some theologies claim god created a perfect Universe without matter,
pain or suffering. Evil demiurges created this world of matter
and its imprefections.
J. Hero gods.
Some religions posit a half mortal, half human entity,
that often is seen as a guide for human kind.
Hercules, Jesus, Samson, Mithra, others.
K. Animistic gods.
Animistic religions, closely related to nature religions, see
the world filled with small gods, some more powerful than others,
some good, some evil. Many African religions and South American
descendents are of this type. Many different mythologies
abound and creation stories.
L. Lares and penitates
Many religions have the deceased as ghosts, in roman
religion, lares were good spirits prayed to for help,
penitates were bad spirits prayed to to stop their
activities. Christianity adopted these ideas as saints.
Chinese 'ancestor worship' often has a similar rationale,
other cultures have had similar ideas.
This can coexist with other religious traditions.
Comments, ideas, additions, complaints?
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 01:05:22 AM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
What I am tossing out for discussion is other class of gods.
I think you've done a reasonable job of classifying various kinds
of gods. Certainly, nothing jumps out at me as being worng or
missing. Good work, as always.
There is one common thread to all those gods, though: each and
every one has some sort of supernatural ability or property. And I
think that that's the key to debunking them. For example, what you
call nature gods all are capable of directly influencing nature by
bypassing any possible mechanism for doing so. A rain god does not
pump moisture from the ocean into the atmosphere, does not set up
fans to blow said moisture to a desired spot, and does not seed
the clouds to start the rain. It causes rain by force of will
alone, which we know to be impossible. Therefore, since a rain
god's most essential property does not exist, neither does the
rain god.
I think it would be interesting to classify gods not by the
story arc of their lives, but by their essential, identifying
characteristics. Then, all you'd have to do to debunk them is
to eliminate at least one essential characteristic as truly
supernatural.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 04:33:47 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
WCB wrote:
What I am tossing out for discussion is other class of gods.
I think you've done a reasonable job of classifying various kinds
of gods. Certainly, nothing jumps out at me as being worng or
missing. Good work, as always.
There is one common thread to all those gods, though: each and
every one has some sort of supernatural ability or property. And I
think that that's the key to debunking them. For example, what you
call nature gods all are capable of directly influencing nature by
bypassing any possible mechanism for doing so. A rain god does not
pump moisture from the ocean into the atmosphere, does not set up
fans to blow said moisture to a desired spot, and does not seed
the clouds to start the rain. It causes rain by force of will
alone, which we know to be impossible. Therefore, since a rain
god's most essential property does not exist, neither does the
rain god.
I think it would be interesting to classify gods not by the
story arc of their lives, but by their essential, identifying
characteristics. Then, all you'd have to do to debunk them is
to eliminate at least one essential characteristic as truly
supernatural.
Cheers,
b&
That sort of is what have posted on a few times, the notion of what is
supernatural? Or what is the physics of god? As far as I can see,
there is no real definition for supernatural. Much less any evidence
whatever that might be exists. Much less a research program from the
theist side to deal with the utter lack of any evidence for something they
don't even seem able to define.
Since nobody has any idea as far as I can see of how to deal with that at
all, it certainly isn't science.
So there is no real supernatural to base a god or deity on.
Nor can theism say how god works, what are the mechanisms, what is the
super-biology as it were of a deity.
And again, there is no viable research plan to deal with that, so there is
no empirical way to prove any possible god has this or that attribute.
Its all argument by definition, argument by unsupported assertions.
And that doesn't seem to work well. These people claim that nobody can say
hoewevolution works (careful not to reaaly check into scince books to find
out) then offer us a god they cannot say how that god works.
Somehow they don't see the irony in that.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 08:02:12 PM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
[W]hat is supernatural?
The supernatural is generally defined as something that
works in contravention or in spite of natural law; I would
suggest that this renders the term nothing but a synonym for
``impossible.'' (If it turns out that the phenomenon in question
actually does exist, that moves it to the realm of the paranormal,
something real which we don't (yet) understand.)
And that's the tack I think I'd personally take with your
quest. Nature gods all bypass the well-understood mechanisms of
weather, climate, hydrology, fire, etc., and they do so in a
manner (merely wishing the outcome to be so) that we know is
impossible. Come up with a similar shared characteristic (there's
no life after death) for each of your other categories of gods
(ancestor spirits), and you're done. The whole class goes <poof>
with just one proof.
There /is/ one important class of gods you haven't yet discussed,
though: idols, living or otherwise. Gaius Julius Caeser most
definitely really existed, and he most definitely was a god. He
didn't have any transcendent powers, but he was nonetheless a real
god that actually existed. Similarly, ``money,'' ``power,'' and
``love'' are all real and are all gods to some people. And, of
course, there're the stone idols, the graven images Jealous was so
jealous of.
In that vein, there /could/ be a race of bug-eyed monsters
who drop in from time to time and who are so powerful that
we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and
supernatural gods. Or, we /could/ be living in a Matrix-style
simulation in which the programmers would be indistinguishable
from gods. However, such beings would have no more intrinsic moral
authority than David Copperfield would if he were to set himself
up as a tin god to some back-bush tribe. And, more to the point,
there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever suggesting that any
such scenario is more likely than the simple explanation that the
universe is exactly what it appears to be.
Finally, you mentioned pantheism in a note to somebody else. A
pantheist would disagree with me, but I see it as nothing other
than the ultimate form of idol worship. What you and I might term
``existence'' or what Sagan called the ``Cosmos'' is what the
pantheist calls ``God.'' This god is indistinguishable from
existence and doesn't actually do anything except insofar as
everything real is part of this god and thus the god does
everything that actually happens...but the god has no will, no
mind of its own. Really, it's just a synonym, which is why I
consider it to be an idol. But pantheists claim that their god is
the One True God, of course, and deny the accusation of idol
worship.
On the other hand, with the exception of the assignment of the one
magic term, I can't tell any difference between a pantheist and an
atheist. I tend to think that they're scared of the term,
``atheist,'' and like to be able to wrap themselves in the theist
mantle but without all the accompanying *****. Whatever floats
their boat.
That's enough rambling for today, I think....
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
22 Aug 2005 12:01:16 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
WCB wrote:
[W]hat is supernatural?
The supernatural is generally defined as something that
works in contravention or in spite of natural law; I would
suggest that this renders the term nothing but a synonym for
``impossible.'' (If it turns out that the phenomenon in question
actually does exist, that moves it to the realm of the paranormal,
something real which we don't (yet) understand.)
And that's the tack I think I'd personally take with your
quest. Nature gods all bypass the well-understood mechanisms of
weather, climate, hydrology, fire, etc., and they do so in a
manner (merely wishing the outcome to be so) that we know is
impossible. Come up with a similar shared characteristic (there's
no life after death) for each of your other categories of gods
(ancestor spirits), and you're done. The whole class goes <poof>
with just one proof.
There /is/ one important class of gods you haven't yet discussed,
though: idols, living or otherwise. Gaius Julius Caeser most
definitely really existed, and he most definitely was a god. He
didn't have any transcendent powers, but he was nonetheless a real
god that actually existed. Similarly, ``money,'' ``power,'' and
``love'' are all real and are all gods to some people. And, of
course, there're the stone idols, the graven images Jealous was so
jealous of.
In effect, the Roman ideas of human divinities fits into
one of two categories with poossible overlap. The Lares - penitates
model, and the hero, a man with semi-divine attributes, Hercules
and others. The Roman state religion seemed to assume that Roman
emperors were divine in the sense of Hercules, far more than a
lares that was strictly familial, an emperor was more for the entire nation,
not a local lares. Some took it more seriously that others, such as
Caligula. The emperor was on a divine mission. Quite literally.
And few peoples mistook idols for their gods, the map is not the territory.
But ist emotionally easier to have idols. having an idol that your fathers
held their ceremonies in front of gave you the feel of a bond with them.
That is why Catholic churches accepted paintings, statues, relics,
and rich trappings of ritual.
That is why the christians took care to destroy idols and temples.
In that vein, there /could/ be a race of bug-eyed monsters
who drop in from time to time and who are so powerful that
we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and
supernatural gods. Or, we /could/ be living in a Matrix-style
simulation in which the programmers would be indistinguishable
from gods. However, such beings would have no more intrinsic moral
authority than David Copperfield would if he were to set himself
up as a tin god to some back-bush tribe. And, more to the point,
there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever suggesting that any
such scenario is more likely than the simple explanation that the
universe is exactly what it appears to be.
Finally, you mentioned pantheism in a note to somebody else. A
pantheist would disagree with me, but I see it as nothing other
than the ultimate form of idol worship. What you and I might term
``existence'' or what Sagan called the ``Cosmos'' is what the
pantheist calls ``God.'' This god is indistinguishable from
existence and doesn't actually do anything except insofar as
everything real is part of this god and thus the god does
everything that actually happens...but the god has no will, no
mind of its own. Really, it's just a synonym, which is why I
consider it to be an idol. But pantheists claim that their god is
the One True God, of course, and deny the accusation of idol
worship.
On the other hand, with the exception of the assignment of the one
magic term, I can't tell any difference between a pantheist and an
atheist. I tend to think that they're scared of the term,
``atheist,'' and like to be able to wrap themselves in the theist
mantle but without all the accompanying *****. Whatever floats
their boat.
That's enough rambling for today, I think....
Cheers,
b&
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 08:23:27 PM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
[...] Or what is the physics of god? As far as I can see,
there is no real definition for supernatural. Much less any evidence
whatever that might be exists. Much less a research program from the
theist side to deal with the utter lack of any evidence for something they
don't even seem able to define.
[etc.]
Well, exactly. In the phrase "God exists", it's very unclear what
people are describing with either term. We might say "signposts exist"
to describe their ability to be bumped into, or "hatred exists" to
describe the way people keeping blowing each other up. But until we can
agree what we are describing in saying "a supernatural force exists",
it's just not a useful sentence, and "does God exist?" is a bad
question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
22 Aug 2005 12:03:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
WCB wrote:
[...] Or what is the physics of god? As far as I can see,
there is no real definition for supernatural. Much less any evidence
whatever that might be exists. Much less a research program from the
theist side to deal with the utter lack of any evidence for something
they don't even seem able to define.
[etc.]
Well, exactly. In the phrase "God exists", it's very unclear what
people are describing with either term. We might say "signposts exist"
to describe their ability to be bumped into, or "hatred exists" to
describe the way people keeping blowing each other up. But until we can
agree what we are describing in saying "a supernatural force exists",
it's just not a useful sentence, and "does God exist?" is a bad
question.
That is why it is interesting to ask, what kind of god do
you believe in?
"Lets check out the old chart here......"
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
31 Aug 2005 04:46:30 PM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
That is why it is interesting to ask, what kind of god do
you believe in?
"Lets check out the old chart here......"
I'm not sure that's such an interesting question, if we're agreeing
that 'god' doesn't have any descriptive power, and is just a sort of
empty box or placeholder of a word. It does have a ton of connotative
baggage to it, which means that any answer to the question probably
involves a long list of how one does *not* use the word. "What don't
you like about the way people have used the word 'god'?" is quite a
good question, I think. "Do you use the word 'god', and if so, how?" is
somewhat interesting to me too.
I like the alternative questions Richard Rorty suggests for people
trying to assess the differences between them, such as "What do you
believe we should be afraid of?" or "What sort of utopia do you
imagine?" and "How might we get there?"
T
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
21 Aug 2005 08:34:36 PM |
|
|
On 21 Aug 2005 18:23:27 -0700, wrote:
WCB wrote:
[...] Or what is the physics of god? As far as I can see,
there is no real definition for supernatural. Much less any evidence
whatever that might be exists. Much less a research program from the
theist side to deal with the utter lack of any evidence for something they
don't even seem able to define.
[etc.]
Well, exactly. In the phrase "God exists", it's very unclear what
people are describing with either term. We might say "signposts exist"
to describe their ability to be bumped into, or "hatred exists" to
describe the way people keeping blowing each other up. But until we can
agree what we are describing in saying "a supernatural force exists",
it's just not a useful sentence, and "does God exist?" is a bad
question.
Most other words are labels for something observed or experienced. But
with God the label came first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
22 Aug 2005 12:06:18 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 21 Aug 2005 18:23:27 -0700, wrote:
WCB wrote:
[...] Or what is the physics of god? As far as I can see,
there is no real definition for supernatural. Much less any evidence
whatever that might be exists. Much less a research program from the
theist side to deal with the utter lack of any evidence for something
they don't even seem able to define.
[etc.]
Well, exactly. In the phrase "God exists", it's very unclear what
people are describing with either term. We might say "signposts exist"
to describe their ability to be bumped into, or "hatred exists" to
describe the way people keeping blowing each other up. But until we can
agree what we are describing in saying "a supernatural force exists",
it's just not a useful sentence, and "does God exist?" is a bad
question.
Most other words are labels for something observed or experienced. But
with God the label came first.
Well observing things, like near death experiences,
probably was the start of the concept of gods and
religion. the problem starts when you take that as real and
start trying to define gods, because you cannot see them.
I strongly suspect somebody did not just one day make
up the idea of god out of nothing.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Classes of gods |
23 Aug 2005 12:52:02 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
WCB wrote:
What I am tossing out for discussion is other class of gods.
I think you've done a reasonable job of classifying various kinds
of gods. Certainly, nothing jumps out at me as being worng or
missing. Good work, as always.
I suppose a load of myths can indeed be 'classified' but it all seems
a total waste of time to me!
There is one common thread to all those gods, though: each and
every one has some sort of supernatural ability or property. And I
think that that's the key to debunking them. For example, what you
call nature gods all are capable of directly influencing nature by
bypassing any possible mechanism for doing so. A rain god does not
pump moisture from the ocean into the atmosphere, does not set up
fans to blow said moisture to a desired spot, and does not seed
the clouds to start the rain. It causes rain by force of will
alone, which we know to be impossible. Therefore, since a rain
god's most essential property does not exist, neither does the
rain god.
I think it would be interesting to classify gods not by the
story arc of their lives, but by their essential, identifying
characteristics. Then, all you'd have to do to debunk them is
to eliminate at least one essential characteristic as truly
supernatural.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
