No such thing as God.

@Ruthless Logic,

Solace,

Darwin uses an example in 'Origin' to show the divergent evolution of a species, i can't quite remember which species of bird or which chain of islands it was, but the point is that geographic isolation caused/allowed the same animal to develop in different ways, eventually into distinct species.

This has occured within the human species - over the 20,000 years or so we've had religious society. Because of the inclusive/exclusive dynamic of religous adherence/faith, we've become distinct breeding groups defined not by some reality, but by our ideas of reality.

Ruthless Logic, This is what I mean by we live in realtion to our understanding of reality, rather than reality. I'm not seeking to undermine, but to elevate the value of knowledge gained by empirical means. I think, with good reason - but not absolute certainty, that empirical investigation, (science) gives us valid knowledge of a reality that actually exists. But human society does not recognize this.

Society is fundamentally religious in nature - with national poltics and capitalist ideology built upon, essentailly rationalizing an irrational foundation. Because this conciet is acted out within a reality with definite characteristics - externalities like the energy crisis and climate change occur and cannot be addressed. That's why i argue we need to centralize scientific knowledge to society and act on the basis of valid knowledge. Then the disparity between social ideation and reality is minimized.

I admit this wasn't clear. I've spent much of the morning reading through this thread and I'm sorry to say that I have not credited many comments with their due - but it's apparent to me now that many comments i've dismissed as ill-informed or meddlesome were actually worthy of deeper consideration. In my defense have been reading and writing in the internet cafe up till now. I hope i'm clearer in future, both in what i mean, and about what you mean.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Darwin was talking about finches on the Galapagos. In that case there were definite physical deviations, such as the finches had twisted beaks useful for applying twigs as tools to dig termites out of trees. I'm not arguing that humans haven't evolved differently because of isolation, I can see that a caucasian looks different than an asian, after all. However, my opposition goes to this notion of equating learning to evolving. In certain cases, the application of knowledge prompts evolutionary deviation, but it isn't the fact that one possessed the knowledge itself that made them different. It's what one does with the knowledge that matters.

And this carries over to our problems with how the supposedly socially advanced parts of the world treats issues like climate change. We have the knowledge to do something about it, but we don't. Instead we're stuck in this rut of imperial superiority, rooted as much or more in the fact that people in these parts of the world have seen themselves as racially superior, rather than just religiously enlightened, and that therefore the whole world is their's to do with as they please.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace,

I don't see the problem with equating learning and evolution, because while racial differences have occured because of these conceptuaual divsions, and appear large in visual perception, they are cosmetic. Gentically, and in the sense we are discussing they are minute. All human beings are capable of an exquisitely complex conceptual appreciation of reality. If you look back at what i said it was 'some societies are more evolved than others.'
I'm attempting to indicate what you might call the collective consciousness - not the relative intellectual capicities of various racial groups, even while this collective consciousness has evolutionary, and therefore individual effects. If such disparities of intellectual ability do exist between racial groups they overlap somewhat, and they would be addressed by a generation of two of adequate nutrituion, healthcare and education, denied by the very factor i cite: 'owning knowledge for political and economic purposes.'

If you want me to address the obvious question: 'why did science happened in Europe rather than Africa?' then I think it's the weather. Nice if you can live from the fruits of the forest, but Europe is not so superficially abundant. It takes thought and work to live in a temperate environment, but yeilds great rewards to the same sort of patient application of study, forethought, experimentation and insight that underlies sceintific investigation. Not that it really matters - truth belongs to everyone capable of that same exquistie appreciation of reality that is the defining characteristic of the human being: merciless God of all other animals.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Solace,

I don't see the problem with equating learning and evolution, because while racial differences have occured because of these conceptuaual divsions, and appear large in visual perception, they are cosmetic. Gentically, and in the sense we are discussing they are minute. All human beings are capable of an exquisitely complex conceptual appreciation of reality. If you look back at what i said it was 'some societies are more evolved than others.'
I'm attempting to indicate what you might call the collective consciousness - not the relative intellectual capicities of various racial groups, even while this collective consciousness has evolutionary, and therefore individual effects. If such disparities of intellectual ability do exist between racial groups they overlap somewhat, and they would be addressed by a generation of two of adequate nutrituion, healthcare and education, denied by the very factor i cite: 'owning knowledge for political and economic purposes.'

If you want me to address the obvious question: 'why did science happened in Europe rather than Africa?' then I think it's the weather. Nice if you can live from the fruits of the forest, but Europe is not so superficially abundant. It takes thought and work to live in a temperate environment, but yeilds great rewards to the same sort of patient application of study, forethought, experimentation and insight that underlies sceintific investigation. Not that it really matters - truth belongs to everyone capable of that same exquistie appreciation of reality that is the defining characteristic of the human being: merciless God of all other animals.

Humanity on a pedestal once again. It's quite funny how us humans believe we are something special. I mean, it's understandable - everyone wants a purpose to life (due to our ability to reason), and so addressing our kind as a unique, elite species that seem to be the leaders of this planet makes sense. But, instead of trying to apply meaning to our lives, let's look at some things:

Why does it matter that we can appreciate the world, and how does that make us God of all other animals?

Just because we have intellect far greater (than we know of, currently) of other animals, we are better?

What if there are other conscious beings, either on this Earth that we haven't found, or elsewhere in the universe?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

I'm not so sure that it matters that we can appreciate the world, but rather it matters that we do depreciate it. Having a greater intellect doesn't make us better, it makes us stewards. But it seems we're not so good at that. Other conscious beings on Earth would likely call into question the role we play here. Other conscious beings elsewhere in the universe not so much so.

iconcoclast,

I'm not one for the whole "collective consciousness" idea. Frankly, I don't see eye to eye with enough people on too many issues, religious and non-religious, to think that I share much in common with them apart from DNA.

When you say that the evolutionary differences accomplished through learning are minute and cosmetic it does take the edge off my opposition to the idea. I'm still not sure that I agree with the equation, but I can at least accept it this way.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Zetherin,

I'm not so sure that it matters that we can appreciate the world, but rather it matters that we do depreciate it. Having a greater intellect doesn't make us better, it makes us stewards. But it seems we're not so good at that. Other conscious beings on Earth would likely call into question the role we play here. Other conscious beings elsewhere in the universe not so much so.

iconcoclast,

I'm not one for the whole "collective consciousness" idea. Frankly, I don't see eye to eye with enough people on too many issues, religious and non-religious, to think that I share much in common with them apart from DNA.

When you say that the evolutionary differences accomplished through learning are minute and cosmetic it does take the edge off my opposition to the idea. I'm still not sure that I agree with the equation, but I can at least accept it this way.

What makes us stewards?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

It doesn't reaaly - throwaway line, it makes us animal+, an animal, but more than an animal because of our intellectual appreciation of reality.

yes. qualitatively better.

it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that there are species in the universe of greater intellect than us, who proably encountered very much the same problems we are now encountering, and overcame them by centralizing scientific knowledge to a global society, as we must do if we want to survive.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

It doesn't reaaly - throwaway line, it makes us animal+, an animal, but more than an animal because of our intellectual appreciation of reality.

yes. qualitatively better.

it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that there are species in the universe of greater intellect than us, who proably encountered very much the same problems we are now encountering, and overcame them by centralizing scientific knowledge to a global society, as we must do if we want to survive.

But would removing the idealistic views, the thoughts of magic, the things that push us to deny logic, and ultimately the destruction of the Earth...would removing these be removing the very beauty of humanity? That is, the thing that will someday bring us destruction may be the very thing that makes us what we are.

If we did view the world through as much of an open mind as possible - rid ourselves of nonsensical ideals related to religion, realize that everything isn't as black and white as many people believe. Where exactly would we be? Sure, we'd have a society that is centralized on scientific knowledge, but would it actually bring us together? I'd like to hope so, but I'm not so sure.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts. I would very much like to spark thought in others if I am able to maintain a philosophy that I believe will benefit humanity.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

Solace,

Quote:

I'm not one for the whole "collective consciousness" idea. Frankly, I don't see eye to eye with enough people on too many issues, religious and non-religious, to think that I share much in common with them apart from DNA.

The collective consciousness is nothing to do with your own knowledge or beliefs per se, but those free floating ideas that exist in the relations between people within a society. For instance, Bob the Bailiff isn't well versed in the theory of property, even while he acts in accord with this knowledge everyday.

Debating the theory of property with Bob the Bailiff when he comes to take your stuff wouldn't do you any good. His adherence is not based on individual consciousness of the idea, but ideas located in collective consciousness.

It's these ideas that need improving, these ideas that define the group relative to the species, that motivate and demotivate social, poltical and economic action and have the effects of divergent evolution in denail of the fact that we're a single species.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

Zetherin,

Such ideas must certainly be removed from politics and economics, and scientifically valid ideas be put in thier place. I accept the mutability of species, and have myself adapted to a worldview devoid of God's, ghosts and goblins.

That's not to say i didn't watch Dr Who, Buffy or enjoy reading The Odyssey, or Dante's Inferno. It's just i don't think we should base our social, political and economic decisions on equally fantastic ideas.

Consequently, and somewhat to my shame, i find myself attempting to disabuse a very stubborn Chrsitian of his delusions - for i know, first hand, how painful a process that can be. But i do have answers that don't infer nihilistic despair - i'm happy to provide free, even though they cost me dear.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

Such ideas must certainly be removed from politics and economics, and scientifically valid ideas be put in thier place. I accept the mutability of species, and have myself adapted to a worldview devoid of God's, ghosts and goblins.

That's not to say i didn't watch Dr Who, Buffy or enjoy reading The Odyssey, or Dante's Inferno. It's just i don't think we should base our social, political and economic decisions on equally fantastic ideas.

Consequently, and somewhat to my shame, i find myself attempting to disabuse a very stubborn Chrsitian of his delusions - for i know, first hand, how painful a process that can be. But i do have answers that don't infer nihilistic despair - i'm happy to provide free, even though they cost me dear.

I agree almost completely with everything you just said.

Where I'm going with this is, if you were going to spark thought, attempt to rid the majority of known society from these delusions, how would you do so, and why? Is it even possible?

A friend of mine and I contemplate this daily, and are still brainstorming ways in which to go about this 'enlightenment'. I'll copy a post from another thread in which I speak on the matter:

"That's the thing - I am unsure as to the way to approach this. I don't want to seem as an elitist. That is, I don't want people to think I'm pushing this as "This is the way, all hail blah blah blah". That, to me, would be exactly like a religion. That's not what I'm aiming for, and I sure as hell don't want to spam. The prospect of an activist also doesn't seem like the right path. It's very tricky to understand the way I should express this. I don't immediately want to work up enthusiasm, as working up enthusiasm means I will also be working up disgust in others.

Somehow I need a way to spark thought in the majority, while not pushing people to lose comfortability immediately. And, somehow I would have to push the idea that a more open-minded philosophy would benefit humanity, without it sounding cultish, or a "what I say, goes" type of situation."

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

i'm making the argument that science is epistemologically superior to ideology because i'm a philosopher and that's what i do. i've only recently got braodband at home, but find these ideas echoed everywhere. i've been listening to lectures @ wgbh and it's happening. also see 'Hard Talk' on BBC iplayer. with oil running out and the climate going haywire people are starting to wonder why, and while i'm still somewhat in frount of the wave, and perhaps more radical than the consensus that will emerge from the arguments, those arguments are beginning to happen. i willingly went down this road, but the rest will be forced to follow. just do your thing.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

I say we're stewards because of all creatures on this Earth we possess the intelligence and foresight to see the problems that the world faces. If we want to see the species survive those problems, at least relatively unharmed, then we must take care of the world in which we are living. If we don't then we'll be the ones to suffer for it, along with a host of less intelligent animals that are being harmed as well. This is what I mean by stewardship. That we are not, as a whole, fulfilling that responsibility doesn't negate us from being stewards, it just makes us bad ones. And I'm not saying these things from a religious or cosmic backing, I'm saying that it is our responsibility to ourselves to take care of the Earth and the creatures in it.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, despite that I encourage responsible stewardship, I'm not crying doom if we don't. I firmly believe that life will go on, it is just the quality and quantity of life that goes on that is in question.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Since you both willingly went down this road, and acknowledge our potential to enlighten people, and at the same time encourage responsible stewards (I enjoy how you explained this, Solace), what's stopping us from spreading this knowledge?

As I explained in my post to iconoclast, I am searching for a way to spread this knowledge, the knowledge of a more open-minded philosophy, the knowledge that I believe will better our species. I also am not as convinced as you that the knowledge is being spread as fast as you think. It may just be surprising to you as you surf the web on your new broadband that these new ideas are out there, but I don't really know if it's regressing or progressing. I'm hoping it's being spread, but it may be at a stand still...which is my fear.

Do either of you have any ideas concerning how I would go about this?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Since you both willingly went down this road, and acknowledge our potential to enlighten people, and at the same time encourage responsible stewards (I enjoy how you explained this, Solace), what's stopping us from spreading this knowledge?

As I explained in my post to iconoclast, I am searching for a way to spread this knowledge, the knowledge of a more open-minded philosophy, the knowledge that I believe will better our species. I also am not as convinced as you that the knowledge is being spread as fast as you think. It may just be surprising to you as you surf the web on your new broadband that these new ideas are out there, but I don't really know if it's regressing or progressing. I'm hoping it's being spread, but it may be at a stand still...which is my fear.

Do either of you have any ideas concerning how I would go about this?

Wow, you all are getting way off-topic. Wink

However, I think it's really a brilliant idea. That was somewhat the scope behind this forum. Just allow people to think and civilly discuss Philosophy. This enlightens us and those who read this, (There's a lot).

There is a change happening in the world today and a realization that we are breeding more than we can feed. I believe there is a gathering of minds taking place all over the world that seek this exact same thing you discuss here. People are beginning to seek that enlightenment within themselves.

As minds come together we must understand that to enlighten others we must first enlighten ourselves. ... Just a thought.

The open minded philosophy is how I think as well. Actually, this is something that several like minded individuals have been thinking about as well and we've gathered a number of like minds throughout the world that seek something similar. We have not implemented anything but Peace would definitely be behind it.

Maybe this subject deserves a thread all it's own.

1 Reply

@Justin,

I agree, Justin and Zetherin, spreading the word that there is a better way of doing things is a good idea. But, I'm not so sure that we've happened upon things here that aren't currently understood by most people. A lot of people now know that we're damaging our enviroment and that we need to take measures to prevent further decay. For the matter of it, a lot of people have known this for quite a long time, and yet we're still doing the same harmful things. (Collectively, I mean, I know that some individuals are trying to make things better.)

I also agree that if we're going to try to throw ideas out there as to what we can do to help, it requires a new thread. A lot of people wouldn't bother to read through the previous 140+ posts here just to get to the consensus that further discussion is needed on ideas to help the enviroment. I don't think that having it in the religious section makes much sense either. If someone decides to start a thread somewhere else about this, please come back and post a link.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace you say:

Quote:

'A lot of people now know that we're damaging our enviroment and that we need to take measures to prevent further decay. For the matter of it, a lot of people have known this for quite a long time, and yet we're still doing the same harmful things.'

and Zetherin, you ask:

Quote:

'what's stopping us from spreading this knowledge?'

the answers to both questions are the same. the problems we face are fundamentally epistemological in nature - rather than moral questions of our obligations as stewards, but this isn't recognized yet.

it's a scary idea to contemplate - that our religious, political and economic ideas, as systems of knowledge, are inadequate to the challenges of the future because it's potentially deeply critical of everything we are, and hold dear, but if we think it's important that humankind survives, that mind continues to observe and understand reality, then we've got to have it out.

if the discussion were convened on this basis, rather than as an attempt to emotionally blackmail man into fulfilling his moral obligations, against the current of his social, political and economic ideation, i'll gladly engage. i've a lot to contribute, but the principle question has to be 'what's true?' rather than 'what's right?'

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Hello iconoclast, Solace, Justin, and others,

I am Zeth's friend that he talked about previously. Zeth and I have spent hours and hours over the past week talking about God, memes, consciousness, and theoretical physics in order to find a greater understanding of the world around us and what we each live for. We feel very... disheartened in seeing so many of our peers around us completely absorbed in their everyday lives, typical pop culture, and the structure of norms that society has constructed around them. This definitely includes God delusions but its like everyone is existing in a state where in their everyday lives, the world might as well be flat and their view of norms is regarded as the only one that isn't weird (as compared to other cultures).

Zeth, me, and one or two other people out of our entire network of real-life friends seem to be the only ones we know who are remotely interested in stepping away from everyday life to discuss matters in a different mindset, like many people on this amazing forum are doing. I believe every one of our peers has the capability to get to this level of discussion by interesting them and bringing them up step by step, with some people having a lot more resistance to this expanded thinking that others. (As our one friend says, "Why do I care if it doesn't help me get my d*ck sucked?", while others are completely absorbed with saving people from Hell)

We have decided that it would bring us much meaning and satisfaction to destroy the prisons that trap our peers on a flat earth, so to speak, but are brainstorming how to do this still. I don't want to be an evangelical atheist. I don't want to construct an army of free thinkers powered by inflated egos. I don't want to look like just another guy trying to push "THE TRUTH". Fliers, rants, and "bombshell" arguments are all pushy things that only seem trivialize matters such as the nonexistence of a classical "God" and legitimize a debate when there really shouldn't be one in the first place.

I think what would work most effectively is a small seed of knowledge or doubt. Seeds that grow over time, seeds that crack and destroy the pavement that runs over top of them. They would only be tiny bits of information, sneaking into minds like a Trojan horse, and they would not be pushed by a perceived intellectual adversary. I myself attended a Christian discussion event and got enormous feedback on why people believe what they do, and there was an enormous interest in why I personally was an atheist and why I believed what I believe. Simply exposing that group to a history of thought processes leading to a conclusion different from theirs was probably enough to sow many seeds of open thought. Also, could brief messages seed critical thinking as well? What could some brief messages be to spur thought? What about these, for example:

"What would you believe if you were born somewhere else?"
"Cities are just concrete jungles."
"No such thing as God."

I've said a lot, both for a newcomer unfamiliar with this forum and for this thread, and this may be even more than one thread can cover. I apologize for how much of this you may have to sift through to respond to me, but like Zetherin, I am very interested in equalizing the thoughts of existing members of this board with the thoughts of myself. Any comments are greatly appreciated.

- Meteo

1 Reply

@Meteo22ob,

Meteo,

Laudable though it is of you to wish to inspire the uninspired you waste your breath trying to tell someone something they just aren't interested in. They don't pick up the conceptual pieces and put it together in thier minds, they don't follow your train of thought. You might be onto something with the slogan idea tho' - how about 'money's not a real thing.'?

That so, the debate concerning the epistemological status of science, on the one hand, and ideology on the other, has got to be had, and must necessarily be lengthy and complex. i think i've got some very sound ideas on the subject that have been tested, and improved upon by discussion here, among people with an interest in the bigger picture.

I know Zeth is concerned about seeming elitist but if it all get's too much he can always jump in his truck with a six pack of bud and go shoot some rats at the dump!

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

icono, this, coming from you, of all people on this forum, cracks me up;

Quote:

Laudable though it is of you to wish to inspire the uninspired you waste your breath trying to tell someone something they just aren't interested in.

And how does that relate to telling people to give up God beliefs and trust in science? We all seem to be on a path here (which isn't to suggest that we're all on the same path,) that we can't expect many other people to follow. As for my own path, I'm content to walk it alone. I have faith beliefs, and they don't seem to fit any better into your vision of the future than they do the churches. But that's beside the point; the point is, as Zeth and Meteo ask, how do we get people to listen to sound advice at least on those issues that we all agree with? (ie: enviromental, political, economic, etc...)

1 Reply

No such thing as God.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know