Nature and the divine.

I don't really know how they can be relevant. Our concept of "divine" would be something that people have created. I don't believe it is possible for nature to arise from divine, since nature is governed by a set of rules, and divine would defy those. Of course, there are those who suggest that nature was already there, so perhaps it did not come from divine. As for divine coming from nature, I don't think it would be possible directly. That depends on whether or not it is natural for man to think up "divine". I suppose it is, since man would want to believe there is a reason for existence, so it would be natural to create religion and "divine".

Re: Nature and the divine.


Neither. Nature is all there is. And it is divine.

How can nature be divine? Nature works on a set of rules and divine doesn't. Divine means if I want there to be a creator who created us all, then so be it, he's just there. On the other hand, nature means if we were to be created, it has to follow certain laws in order to be plausible.

<sigh> is there anything else to talk about besides dualism? No wonder the US still has a two party system. Personally, I'm with Rosborne.

The chicken and the egg...?

Theoretically, I'm guessing it was the egg, as egg-laying creatures that eventually evolved into reptiles and birds came before what we know as a chicken today. How KFC defines chicken could open up a whole new discussion though.

I'm not saying there is one answer to this question. I simply asked for viewpoints.

My idea is that there is no divine without the perception of the divine, and perception depends on nature, namely, a body and mind.

I admit that this would be problamatic for and contrary to those who believe that the divine is separate from nature.

I agree full with Rosborne that nature is all there is and, it is divine.

As for the chicken and the egg, I still agree with Alan Watts that they both came at the same time.

"nature is all there is and, it is divine."

Would you at least explain that?

I'm not sure what we mean by "devine", but, again, I agree with Rozborne. Nature is the term I use for all there is; supernatural is a superfluous concept. And nature is not "governed" by rules. The so-called laws of nature are no more than what we describe as its behavioral regularities. There is no Governor who enforces laws. Everything nature does is "lawful" because lawful is what it does.

I happen to be a big fan of Alan Watts. I would suggest that the human concept of divine came from observing nature, and developing theories about that which was not easily understood, or explained. As for the actual existence of a divine being who governs the universe, I don't believe in that at all.

Then you and I agree, Cavfancier. The divine is subjective and not objective.

Indeed we do agree coluber.

Lucifer: I'm not sure how to explain the statement that everything is nature and nature is divine. I'm not talking about the divine as a seperate reality apart from the universe. I guess I'm talking about the human relationship to nature. We're a part of nature, but our mind makes it appear that we're seperate.

The divine is an invention made as a 'protection' from nature; ancient man was constantly at war with nature, seeking to survive against the ravages of weather, disease, and predation, and so fashioned a system of 'explanation' for the amoral psychotic nature of existence, which we have yet to discard.

The notion of divine clearly refers, or should refer, to a subjective state. To me the term expresses an appreciation for nature or Reality. It's an adjective not a noun. Good points, Coluber.

I cannot define the divine, but I know it when I see it.

We must not forget that "divine" is an idea invented in the past by fellow humans. It does not refer to the essence of something IN THE WORLD. Someone once said that the concept of "puppy" came about when someone asked another, "What shall we call a young dog?" After some time this event was forgotten and we sought to define the essence of "puppiness." This is the "original sin" of the thinking being: reification (the forgetting of the origin of ideas with the consequence that we think they are given and objects in themselves). As I said before, divine for me is an adjectival term of appreciation, as in "The divine May West."

JL,

Okay, I'll amend my words then.

I cannot define the divine, but I know when I have the feeling of its presence. I think.

That's right, IMO. You'll not recognize "it" (divinity) when you see it; you'll feel that something is worthy of the evaluation, "divine." Is that what you mean?