Religion and Science - Ephiral and Kythia chattin'

[Kythia]

Just in case y'all want to weigh in.

[Ephiral]

For the record, I'd appreciate it - I am evaluating my position here and would like to see it subjected to strong attack. If anyone has a point to raise that they think will get into a lengthy digression, please PM me.

[MasterMischief]

I read through the dialogue and I fear a lot of it went over my head.  I apologize if I mischaracterize either of your positions.

So, is the point that we can not design, through logic, a moral compass in which we do the least harm?

I believe I agree with Ephiral that appealing to emotion is not a logical, nor necessarily a very beneficial means of devising a moral compass.  Could it be their our emotional reactions are strongly influenced by our environment?

Do I understand you correctly, Kythia, that only Christianity's morals can work because god wants you to be happy?  That argument evaporates if those morals were designed by men and not god.  You are then no better off than any atheist and possibly much worse off because you are working with an outdated rules set...one designed for a completely different environment.

Kythia, if I may continue to argue my understanding of your position.  You believe you were unhappy because you were selfish before finding Christianity.  What if you were unhappy simply because you lacked long term vision?  You could have been selfish and realized your happiness depends on others and therefore you should not, for lack of a better phrase, not be a jerk to everyone.

I hope I have not completely butchered the debate here.  I also hope I have not insulated anyone and that my statements are somewhat coherent.

I would like to thank the two of you for sharing this.

[Kythia]

You certainly haven't mischaracterised mine, Ephiral can speak for himself.  Now, some of these points I'll address in thread as they seem directly relevant.  However, with your permission I'm going to sit on them for a while.  The reason is simple - Ephiral is AFK for a while to deal with some other business and I've already made three posts on the trot.  Making a fourth pretty much tips this over the edge from dialogue to monologue - I'd like to give her a chance to get a word in edgeways.

Do I understand you correctly, Kythia, that only Christianity's morals can work because god wants you to be happy?  That argument evaporates if those morals were designed by men and not god.  You are then no better off than any atheist and possibly much worse off because you are working with an outdated rules set...one designed for a completely different environment.

You do, yes.  Understand me correctly, I mean.  I think your argument is incorrect though as I think you're making a false dichotomy, namely that Christian morals must have been designed by God OR man.  Look at Exodus and Deuteronomy.  What we have there is the remnants of a legal code for governing a nation.  I have no doubt that there was a blindingly good reason for not wearing clothes made of two materials because, well, why else would that law have been made?  It's no longer relevant though - "designed for a completely different environment" as you rightly say.  And, after some awkward twisting and turning to see the label, I can confirm that my jogging shorts are made from a mixture of nylon and cotton.  A coincidence, really - I don't go out of my way to say "Ha, screw you, Samhedrin! I'll wear clothes made out of as many materials as I want!  Mwa ha ha!" - but neither do I pay any attention to that law.  Sure, its arguable whether that's a matter of morals anyway, but you take my point.  Aspects of Christianity are developed by man and are suited to a particular time/place/etc and of questionable relevance outside there.

All of this, I'll caveat this here and now but it applies to the above and the below, is solely my opinion. 

The Bible, as a whole, was written by man.  Everything in there fits into that category.  Even the bits that a modern person may like - loving thy neighbour and all that malarkey.  Written by man, for a particular time and place. 

The Bible, however, was inspired by God.  It's not like the Koran which is viewed as God's direct word.  It's more like if you went on to write a book based on this conversation.  There'll be bits you haven't remembered, bits you took something different than what was intended, etc.  Yanno, hypothetically.  But the end result will be coloured by your - your perceptions, prejudices, etc and the particular time and place where you live.

So lets look at one of the less palatable passages - written by Paul in his letter to the Romans:

Romans 1:26-28 (translation is KJV)

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

("convenient" in that last passage means "proper" or "normal") 

It's one of Paul's trademark rants against homosexuality.

Now, there's divine inspiration there.  but it's filtered through Paul's personal/cultural/societal/etc perceptions. 

Now look at Genesis 9.  This is God talking to Noah after the Ark has made landfall and the flood has receded:

Genesis 9:7 (KJV again)

And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

God's saying shag and be merry, have loads of kids.  Traditionally Moses wrote Genesis.  Obviously he didn't, but lets use "Moses" as a placeholder for the author of that passage, if we might.  The Jews at the time of writing of this section were (probably) in the middle of what's called the "Babylonian Captivity".  They were essentially slaves to the way more powerful Babylonians.  And Moses' writing was influenced by the time and place he was in.  He wanted the Jews (I'm actually wrong to use Jews here, but I hope you'll forgive me) to prosper, to spread, to grow in power.

I believe there is the same message here.  That God wants humanity to grow, prosper and be strong.  Moses has seen it through his glasses as essentially what it is, Paul through his glasses as believing sex that doesn't/can't lead to procreation is morally repugnant.  That's because Paul's a dick.  Hardly a controversial point.

So tying that together, I believe Christian morals were interpreted by man but inspired by God.  Specific rules are, indeed, "designed for a completely different environment" but that's because the authors were fallible and shackled by their culture and prior notions as much as anyone else was.  However, taking everything as a whole, and being mindful of those biases, a consistent message emerges - a glimpse here, a glimpse there, understanding slowly growing as time passages and Christian tradition is added to.  Just as by reading the book you wrote about this conversation and the book Vekseid wrote and the book, errrr, someone else wrote and comparing the similar themes, we can get a clearer picture of the actual conversation than from your book alone.

Does that answer?

Your other point I will, with your permission, address in thread.

[Ephiral]

So, is the point that we can not design, through logic, a moral compass in which we do the least harm?

I believe I agree with Ephiral that appealing to emotion is not a logical, nor necessarily a very beneficial means of devising a moral compass.  Could it be their our emotional reactions are strongly influenced by our environment?

I kicked this off largely because I see the assumption that we can't design a secular, conscious moral code all the time, and I figured Kythia is the sort of awesome person who could help me understand it.

To clarify a bit, I absolutely think that emotion has a place in morality - but it should be an output, and is instead generally used as an input. One of the red flags I tend to use, in fact, is just that: If "I find it icky!" is the first or only reason I can give to object to something, then I should probably sit down and shut up and let people go about their business.

Kythia, if I may continue to argue my understanding of your position.  You believe you were unhappy because you were selfish before finding Christianity.  What if you were unhappy simply because you lacked long term vision?  You could have been selfish and realized your happiness depends on others and therefore you should not, for lack of a better phrase, not be a jerk to everyone.

This is what I was touching on with my reference to game and security theory in the OP.

I hope I have not completely butchered the debate here.  I also hope I have not insulated anyone and that my statements are somewhat coherent.

I would like to thank the two of you for sharing this.

You're quite welcome! You seem to be getting the gist of it as far as I can tell. And please do insulate me - I need to get out of this heat.   ;D

[MasterMischief]

And please do insulate me - I need to get out of this heat.   ;D

This is exactly the reason I should not be let anywhere near a religious or political thread.  Not because I mispelled a word.  I mispelled it because I was in such a damn hurry to post.  I just can't resist jumping in and giving my two cents.

God's saying shag and be merry, have loads of kids.

I believe Ephiral is making a very similar argument in the dialogue, but as I said, I can't resist jumping in. 

One, I believe you are picking out the morals that match the ones you have already developed within yourself from your environment.  They only seem divinely inspired because they match the way you think the world should be.

Two, if the divine word can be so horribly butchered by a single, authoritative individual, I would be very hesitant to put my faith into any of the rest of it.  How can I know something else is not equally butchered?

For me, even as an atheist, number two is not an excuse to simply toss the entire Bible aside.  I believe I am equiped with more or less the same morals you are, so I can judge which pieces are worth keeping and which are not.  I have the advantage of not trying to decipher the true intent of an unknown authority.  I simply acknowledge the parts I like and discard the parts I do not.  They must each stand on their own merit.  This also allows me to draw, in the same way, from other sources, such as the Tao Te Ching, Buddhists koans or anywhere else I may find useful words.

None of it need be divinely inspired and when someone challenges me on any particular moral I feel like preaching, I do not have to fall back on the authority of the writing, which is questionable, but on my own reasoning for adopting it...which had better be damned good for having adopted it.

[Ephiral]

This is exactly the reason I should not be let anywhere near a religious or political thread.  Not because I mispelled a word.  I mispelled it because I was in such a damn hurry to post.  I just can't resist jumping in and giving my two cents.

*giggles* I'm the same way - you'll be hard-pressed to find a post I've made and not edited (outside of Dialogues), because I often post and then go "Wait, did I just say that? That's stupid." Moving the discussion to Dialogues has been good for me because it makes me slow down and get my shit together.

For me, even as an atheist, number two is not an excuse to simply toss the entire Bible aside.  I believe I am equiped with more or less the same morals you are, so I can judge which pieces are worth keeping and which are not.  I have the advantage of not trying to decipher the true intent of an unknown authority.  I simply acknowledge the parts I like and discard the parts I do not.  They must each stand on their own merit.  This also allows me to draw, in the same way, from other sources, such as the Tao Te Ching, Buddhists koans or anywhere else I may find useful words.

None of it need be divinely inspired and when someone challenges me on any particular moral I feel like preaching, I do not have to fall back on the authority of the writing, which is questionable, but on my own reasoning for adopting it...which had better be damned good for having adopted it.

Frankly, and without meaning to sneer at anyone's faith, I tend to avoid religious works when it comes to morality, except maybe as a source of propositions to consider on their own merits. They don't even try to reason out their arguments - it's just not the language they speak. This is... a considerable weakness, if you want a rational and reasoned system.

[Retribution]

Sorry guys I meant this to go here and hit the wrong button. I will C&P but feel free to ignore the idiot.


I will not cite material like the two of you but as an aside with religion and science. I am a practicing biologist and if you are a biologist and do not believe in evolution you are well not much of a biologist.  :-) I am also a practicing Catholic see an issue there? Wrong actually, while there may have been back during the Inquisition there is not really now. I graduated from Catholic high school more because of a better private education than religion. BUT I was first taught evolution there by a nun.

To keep this from getting too long: I do not blindly follow everything the church preaches and I do not blindly follow everything someone calling themselves a scientist well preaches. God gave me a brain and I chose to use it. Generally though we reach points that science cannot explain and I attribute that to god. A strict it is all just like in the bible stance is silly and for the ignorant. Science is a great tool for me for how the world and universe around me works, but religion is a great moral compass.

I could go into specific places I do not follow the "good Catholic" party line. But suffice to say I go about 50/50 in agreement with the church. But I do not see religion and science as one or the other and there is now also a scientific division in the Vatican. So I am pretty sure the church does not either. Extremists and fanatics of any flavor are a bad thing no matter if they are Christian, Muslim, Pagan, or Atheist. Also many overly religious sorts use that as an excuse to be pretentious and snotty which is a direct contradiction to most religious teachings.

[Kythia]

@Retribution.

I actually think the anti-science position of the Catholic Church has been greatly exaggerated.  They never came out against evolution as a body (though, granted, prominent Catholics did on an individual basis) and the current position :

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution

which seems pretty unarguably pro-evolution to me.  Senior Vatican officials (though granted not the Church as a body) have also criticised Intelligent Design. 

I think a lot of it comes from the house arrest of Galileo.  But there's a couple of issues there.  First, this was the enlightenment and a load of new scientific theories were emerging contrary to Catholic dogma.  Galileo is one of the very few that was arrested.  But, sure, thats kinda like standing in front of the judge and arguing you should be let free because, hey, look at all the people you didn't murder.

More importantly, though, he was tainted by Giordano Bruno who, sure, held that the earth revolved around the sun but also held a metric fuck ton of heretical beliefs.  He was burnt at the stake for those beliefs and it kinda tainted heliocentrism for Galileo.  But even after Galileo started on about it, it wasn't until he attacked (in writing) the Pope that he was arrested.  Essentially, had Bruno not been such a dick and given the Copernican model (hey, Copernicus - another dude the Church had no massive issue with), the Galileo affair might well never have happened.

*shrug*

[Kythia]

Rats, forgot the second half of that post.

@Ephiral - you should check out Taleb's work - "The Black Swan" and "Antifragile".  It's the core of my problem with your argument.

[Retribution]

The History Channel did a bit on Secrets of the Vatican. The one priest essentially said "we fucked up" but much more eloquently than I just put it. From what I have read in the past one of Galileo's big issues was lack of personality with a side of arrogance as you touched on with him attacking the Pope.

My kids are more active in the church than me, but they also are capable of thinking on their own and not just digesting what they might be fed at church. The point is radicals in religion no matter the religion are a BIG problem. Sadly I think radicals are caused by the twin demons of poverty and lack of education. It is easy to be led astray when you are hungry and someone will feed you for example. But that is a whole other ball of wax. The Catholic church breeds these things IMHO for self preservation like with their stance against birth control for example. I went to school with a family of 22 kids who were dirt poor and turned to the church for everything. But now my inner cynic is showing.

I think most mistakes of religion are the construct of human beings. Get two or more of them together and they spin it to their own point of view. I do not let that disrupt my belief that there is some sort of greater being out there. I may not know all of the answers but I think there is something more. And I do not think that view means I should exclude clear science because it goes against something stated in the bible.

[Ephiral]

Rats, forgot the second half of that post.

@Ephiral - you should check out Taleb's work - "The Black Swan" and "Antifragile".  It's the core of my problem with your argument.

I have not read them, but... well, I'm a security-theory nut, which means I'm all too familiar with black swan theory. It's one of a long list of cognitive biases that I absolutely loathe... and that are best countered by being aware of them and looking at what the numbers actually say. Antifragility, from the quick overview I've found, appears to be exactly what I'm trying to build into an ethics framework - existing ones are pretty damn fragile.

[Kythia]

I'd beg to differ.  You seem to be proposing a system that requires constant oversight by knowledgeable and charismatic* individuals in order to stay on track.  Constant oversight and warding is the very definition of fragility.

*Charismatic because no matter how objectively correct your ideas they still need to be communicated effectively.  I'm using charismatic here as a shorthand for articulate, intelligent, persuasive, all the other adjectives that mean "can communicate an idea effectively"

[Ephiral]

Whereas I say that "actually breaking down on a regular basis" is a stronger indication of fragility. Moral systems live in human brains; I see it as perfectly acceptable to use those brains - which, after all, are the source of most of the error - as part of the error-correction mechanism. I've danced around this without saying it outright, which is my fault, but it's not about a handful of charismatic and knowledgeable individuals - it's about teaching rationality and counter-bias reasoning alongside the moral framework, so the work can be distributed and the end result can be more robust.

[Kythia]

I'm using "fragile" in Taleb's sense, sorry.  Antifragile would be a system that benefits from making down, a system that doesn't break down is merely robust.

I hadn't realised, apologies, that you were proposing a broader system of rationality as a basis for a moral code, I had read you to mean that your code was transferable to those with biases intact.  But that just makes my objection to your proposed system stronger.  We seemed to agree that eliminating one bias - luxury being subjective not objective - brought the viability of the system into question.  Eliminating all of them?  For every human?  Surely that damages the system almost infinitely more than the problems caused by just eliminating one of the,.

[Ephiral]

I don't think it damages it so much as helps correct it. I admit what I've put forth is faulty - this is due in small part to the fact that the work is not finished by a long shot, and in large part to the fact that I'm trying to reason from first principles in isolation. The distinction I see is that this system is at least somewhat error-correcting, while others are quite often error-prone - sometimes going so far as to rest, fundamentally, on significant faults in human reasoning. (The most common examples I can think of offhand are affective spirals, semantic stopsigns, and reasoning from the conclusion to the justification.) A system that depends on faults is going to have significant faults baked into it; a system trying to correct for them might not be perfect but is not built on sand.

Perhaps I misunderstood, then. I took "antifragile" to mean a system that is strengthened by real-world tests and attempts to damage it, not one that gets better after breaking down. Being prone to periodic catastrophic failure (ie, breaking down) strikes me as pretty damn fragile, no matter how well you rebuild it afterward.

[Kythia]

Gonna address those points in thread as they tie into something I wanted to say in the broader discussion anyway.

[Kythia]

It's hot here and is making me grumpy.  I am, I have noticed, utterly unfairly taking that grumpiness out on Ephiral.

Ephiral has, generously, agreed to put this conversation on hold for a few days so I can get it all out of my system and not look like any more of a megabitch than I presumably already do.  She's a star.  So I'll return to this in a few days when I'm capable of holding a decent discussion with him without getting pissy.

[MasterMischief]

I, for one, enjoy seeing both sides being debated civily rather than the usual "You're stupid!"  "Why are you insulting my beliefs?!"

It seems we like to put people (or ideas) into black or white containers.  It has been my experience, people (and ideas) never quite fit into black or white containers.

[Kythia]

Ephiral,

I've deliberately done this in here rather than the main thread as I feel it steps outside the dialogue slightly.

I've tried to address this before and made an offensive hash of it.  You rightly called me up on it.  However, I do think I need to try to address this again.

Imagine I claimed I had found flaws in Shannon's work, but in explaining them it became clear that there were basic concepts and terms underpinning it that I had no understood or was using in an extremely nonstandard way.  I don't think it would be unreasonable of you to say "I think you need to go away and read up on the subject a bit more."  Your insistence that belief in a divine is a sine qua non of religion has kind of reached that stage.  You raised the issue last time I tried to bring this up that saying "you're not qualified" is not the correct way to answer this.  But, well, do you remember a PM conversation we had?  And your opinion of my not knowing of someone and how that affected my ability to discuss the topic?  Clearly you feel that there is a case, sometimes, for "you're not qualified to discuss this."

This is no comment on your intelligence, simply on the background knowledge you are lacking.  I'm happy to point you to the relevant journal articles and suchlike - although a  fair amount are in German - but at the moment I don't see that first half of the conversation going anywhere at all.  Look at this from your viewpoint.  You have mentioned in the dialogue that there are some claims you consider so unlikely that they are not worth investigating.  Is it likely that you, having heard a brief precis of the theory, have spotted a flaw that has escaped a hundred years of scholars despite evidently lacking some of the underpinning knowledge?  I take your previous point about constantly questioning what we know but that needs to be done by people who understand the issues better than you, or I for that matter.

To briefly answer your question regarding atheism, Judaism and Odin - the process of not being a member of a religion any more is called apostasy.  Apostasy in Judaism is well defined and lack of belief in G-d simply doesn't form part of it.  To the extent that Jewish athesists are a recognized demograph that includes prominent rabbis.  The difference between your two scenarios is a fundamental concept with parallels across most religions.

Again, I'm happy to direct you to the sources you'll need if you're at all interested.  I just don't see continued discussion on the topic being at all productive.



I've done this in here for a couple of reasons.  One, though I have tried as hard as I can not to be offensive I have no real way of knowing how successful I've been.  Doing it in here allows other people than just you to call me out for being a bitch in case you, for whatever reason, felt unwilling.  Two as I wanted to get your opinions, assuming you were willing to give them, on that matter prior to posting in the main debate thread and either incorrectly ignoring your points regarding the progression of religion when you felt they needed addressing or vice versa.

Once again, any offense I have caused here was entirely accidental and please accept my apologies.

[Ephiral]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood; I saw you, personally, asserting that atheism is a special case, and assumed it was not part of the theory. I'd be interested in being pointed at the articles you're speaking from. I admit I am unfamiliar with the theory you brought up; my questions were motivated at least as much by "there's obviously something I'm missing here" as by "this is obviously contradictory".

In the meantime, I'm happy leaving that portion of the discussion by the wayside.

There's no offense for me to take here.

[Rogue]

I just read your last post Kythia, and out of curiosity, how would that apply to religions that are Atheistic in nature? For instance Buddhism, while speaking of Nirvana and in some instances revering Buddha as a God, but not actually needing a God to exist. On the same instance there is at least one other instance, I can't remember what it's called off the top of my head (merely that I heard about it in my religions course), that was atheistic in nature, merely believing in a place similar to Nirvana.

[Kythia]

Heya Rogue,

Well, the specific example of Buddhism isn't actually an overly good one.  Don't forget that Siddhārtha Gautama was born within a religious tradition - Hindu for the sake of ease, though that term is startlingly imprecise.  So that development of religion had already happened by the time the Buddha was born, even were Buddhism strictly atheistic - and look at the likes of the Celestial Buddhas in the mahāyāna school for deities in Buddhism - its not meaningfully different from Ephiral's mention of Bentham.  It's an atheistic practice growing out of a religious milieu.  I'm not sure how well I've put this across so I'm gonna try again in another phrasing in the hope one of them sticks.

Every culture has developed gods.  In the place where Buddhism was founded this was largely Vedic Brahminism, but the specifics aren't overly relevant.  The Buddha came along after that.  While I wouldn't go so far as to say Buddhism grew from the Vedic traditions - though I think there's an argument to be made that it did - the core point is that the culture of Siddhārtha Gautama had already been through the steps of developing gods.  Imagine if you, Rogue, came up with a revelation in atheistic thought, a new way to be an atheist.  It wouldn't change the fact that the European culture had already come up with gods.

So the reason I think Buddhism isn't a terribly good example is that while it's a coherent atheistic (broadly) teaching, it's one that postdated and in fact was in deliberate and conscious opposition to the predominant theistic one (look at the Kālāma Sutta, for example).

So a load of religions that are "atheistic in nature" - Buddhism for the sake of argument, Samkhya school Hinduism, etc - don't affect the argument any more than Bentham does, they're simply too late.  They come after the gods have already been envisaged and from the same place.

Obviously I can't talk specifically about the other example you give.  Sounds broadly like some sort of neo-paganism, but meh.

[Kythia]

Also, fuck.  Forgot to pick up those references.  *adds to tomorrow's to do list*

[Rogue]

Heya Rogue,

Well, the specific example of Buddhism isn't actually an overly good one.  Don't forget that Siddhārtha Gautama was born within a religious tradition - Hindu for the sake of ease, though that term is startlingly imprecise.  So that development of religion had already happened by the time the Buddha was born, even were Buddhism strictly atheistic - and look at the likes of the Celestial Buddhas in the mahāyāna school for deities in Buddhism - its not meaningfully different from Ephiral's mention of Bentham.  It's an atheistic practice growing out of a religious milieu.  I'm not sure how well I've put this across so I'm gonna try again in another phrasing in the hope one of them sticks.

Every culture has developed gods.  In the place where Buddhism was founded this was largely Vedic Brahminism, but the specifics aren't overly relevant.  The Buddha came along after that.  While I wouldn't go so far as to say Buddhism grew from the Vedic traditions - though I think there's an argument to be made that it did - the core point is that the culture of Siddhārtha Gautama had already been through the steps of developing gods.  Imagine if you, Rogue, came up with a revelation in atheistic thought, a new way to be an atheist.  It wouldn't change the fact that the European culture had already come up with gods.

So the reason I think Buddhism isn't a terribly good example is that while it's a coherent atheistic (broadly) teaching, it's one that postdated and in fact was in deliberate and conscious opposition to the predominant theistic one (look at the Kālāma Sutta, for example).

So a load of religions that are "atheistic in nature" - Buddhism for the sake of argument, Samkhya school Hinduism, etc - don't affect the argument any more than Bentham does, they're simply too late.  They come after the gods have already been envisaged and from the same place.

Obviously I can't talk specifically about the other example you give.  Sounds broadly like some sort of neo-paganism, but meh.

It's not Neo-Paganism... it's an old religion. I just... don't care enough to find it. I just was curious on your outlook on it. :)

[MasterMischief]

I am not sure I follow, Kythia.  I am probably reading into what you posted.  Are you saying that since all cultures first had gods, there must be something to that?

[Rogue]

Oddly enough, I'm not so sure with Roman culture, since the Roman "Gods" before Greek culture permiated the society was more based on concepts than actual deities. Like there were "deities" but they were more like Lady Luck then Zeus. Since Romans were very practical, which is also why they let the Greeks teach their children despite them being their slaves....

[Kythia]

MasterMischief - yeah, in essence.  "Must be something in that" is obviously my belief, I suspect, not to put words in her mouth, that Ephiral will argue that there needn't be, but yeah, in essence.

Rogue - Sorry, I'm not certain I understand your point.  Deities based on concepts are entirely what animism is about, which is the first step of the process.

Mildly off topic

Quite honestly I'd question your assertion that Rome didn't have true polytheism before Greek culture became predominant anyway.  Even in the time of the Roman Kingdom - the Archaic Period in Greece - Rome had true polytheism.  I am admittedly not certain when Greek culture became entrenched in Roman life but I'd be pretty confident in saying it was after the rise of Athenian democracy (if I had to guess I'd say it was after the conquest of Greece in the 2nd Century BC, but as I say, I don't really know).

But yeah, Rome seems a perfect example of my argument. The belief in Numen is practically a textbook example of animism (in fact *checks* yup.  It's literally a textbook example of animism) leading to polytheism as these spirits gain personalities and "expand".

[Kythia]

Anyway, before I forget again.

@Ephiral:

Your best place to start is probably with early anthropologists.  Lot of mutton chopped Victorian natural philosophers for you.

Tylor, Edward., (1871) Primitive Culture. New York: J.P. Putnam’s Sons.

is probably your best place to start.  Frankly its a really enjoyable read even leaving aside our current convesation.  You can find both volumes on Google Books.

Spencer, Herbert (1892) A system of synthetic philosophy . London: Williams and Northgate,

touches on it.  I assume you know Spencer and hence that the book is dense and borderline unreadable. I meainly include it as Spencer is more famous than Tylor to show the secular/atheistic beginnings of the idea.

Lubbock J (1870) The Origin of Civilisation and the Primitive Condition of Man, Longmans, Green & Co., London

Has all the joys of Victorian racism to go with it as well.



After that you get into the German Religionsgeschichtliche Schule.  I've weighted resources heavily towards those in English, if you speak German though then shout as there's a lot more available.

The Dogmatics of the "Religionsgeschichtliche Schule", Troeltsch E, The American Journal of Theology  , Vol. 17, No. 1 (Jan., 1913), pp. 1-21

is essentially an overview.  It's available on JSTOR.  As is the broadly similar

From Comparative Religion to History of Religions, Haydon A, The Journal of Religion  , Vol. 2, No. 6 (Nov., 1922), pp. 577-587



Then you move to Joseph Kitagawa and the Chicago School.  Essentially, anything by Kitagawa is your winner here.  Everything else is a vague rehashing of his work.  If I were you I'd start with either:

The History of Religions or Understanding and Believing

The only non-Kitagawa work I'd really consider is:

W F Albright (1957) From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process

and my apologies to scholarship in that my copy is a photocopy and I can't be bothered to look up the publisher.  Embarrassed smilie.



Finally, despite how much of it has been discredited, no discussion would be complete without the joys of Frazer's The Golden Bough.  You really should read it.

Shameless Plug

Through online interaction I know the author of:

Chibi, A (2008), Religion: An Introduction to the Major World Faiths,   London: Studymates Ltd.

Chapter one deals with this issue and I figured I might as well plug it.  It's written for a non-technical audience and is relatively enjoyable.

Plus, he's Canadian so uses a lot of polar bear and maple syrup type analogies that you might find especially helpful.

[MasterMischief]

I think that 'something' is man's tendency to anthropomorphize things.  I do not think that suggests there are gods, only that humans have difficulty thinking outside the box.

[Kythia]

I suspect, and again I'm not trying to make Ephiral's argument for him, but I suspect that will be her argument as well. 

EDIT:  Sorry Mischief, that sounded a little dismissive didn't it.  Sorry about that.  All I meant to say is that
1) Yeah, I suspect Ephiral will agree with you
and
2) I'm not sure its resolvable.  Your position takes the statement "Humans have a tendency to anthropomorphise and hence came up with gods" as a starting step, mine takes "humans intuitively know that God exists and hence find evidence everywhere" as its.  The two are, to some extent, mutually excusive each being predicated on  their respective conclusions being correct - "hence no god" and "hence god". 

In brief, a load of these type of conversations eventually fall in to a "God exists" "Doesn't" "Does" "Doesn't" argument and its pretty easy to see why.  It's why, and I have no idea how successful I've been, I've been trying to "explain my viewpoint" rather than "argue my viewpoint" if you get the distinction I'm drawing.

[Rogue]

Rogue - Sorry, I'm not certain I understand your point.  Deities based on concepts are entirely what animism is about, which is the first step of the process.

Mildly off topic

Quite honestly I'd question your assertion that Rome didn't have true polytheism before Greek culture became predominant anyway.  Even in the time of the Roman Kingdom - the Archaic Period in Greece - Rome had true polytheism.  I am admittedly not certain when Greek culture became entrenched in Roman life but I'd be pretty confident in saying it was after the rise of Athenian democracy (if I had to guess I'd say it was after the conquest of Greece in the 2nd Century BC, but as I say, I don't really know).

But yeah, Rome seems a perfect example of my argument. The belief in Numen is practically a textbook example of animism (in fact *checks* yup.  It's literally a textbook example of animism) leading to polytheism as these spirits gain personalities and "expand".

I apologize. I'm big on the whole most Gods being in the same or a similar form to Humans or some animal thing ((Adam and Eve being given the Form of God for instance)). Once again, last time I did research on this was about three years ago and I'm iffy on the time periods (Because that hadn't been important to my research at the time). However, while you see many cultures having carvings and statues and such to their Gods, the Romans did the bare minimum almost until first contact with Greece. And what's even more interesting is that none of them had Human or Animal form or some combination of the two, which I can't think of another culture that didn't.

I actually looked up the religion that I was thinking of and found more things. While all of the atheistic Religions have roots in Hinduism (And some are sects of Hinduism), I think the one I was considering was Jainism, which holds all souls to be equivalent and therefore the "Gods" are merely overpowered beings not actually "Gods" in the same sense. Thus, more severe practitioners making sure not to tread on bugs as they walk, because they believe them to have the same value as them. It also gives humans the ability to reach a higher level of enlightenment than those "Deities."

[Kythia]

Huh?  No need to apologise at all.

Anthropomorphised gods, with that emphasis are definitely the rule rather than the exception, yeah (it's called anthropotheism or physitheism - the first is gods having specifically human forms, the second merely a physical form.  First is a subset of the second, obviously).  Particularly in early/young religions - less so in late/old ones.  It's the gaumalar thing again, having the rhetorical and intellectual framework to conceive of an essentially unfamiliar god is conceptually a step beyond more familiar appearances.  What you see more often is a progression from a "human" god (like the J source god in the Torah who wanders about in the Garden of Eden and looks for Adam and Eve because he can't find them) to an ineffable one (E source god.  Fiat Lux, and it was.  No human aspects there - god didn't need to rub two sticks together, say, to create light.  He simply willed it in to existence)

It's not utterly unheard of, though.  Some of the types of Kami in Shinto are similar, though others do have physical forms.

Jainism is pretty interesting, one of those things that make defining "religion" a fucking nightmare.  Implicit in mine and Ephiral's discussion has been a definition that's essentially "we both know what we mean by the word".  Not to give the impression I'm trying to rule Jainism out, I fully accept it as a religion.  Just saying that a definition of religion that includes Jainism but excludes communism or football is pretty tough to pin down. 

But even in Jainism you have the duty of chaturvimshati  (which, embarrassingly, I had to Wikipedia.  Could not remember that word for the life of me...), the tirthankara are a little more than just ascended humans - particularly the early ones.  And look at their role - they use their supernatural powers for the benefit of people who are sincerely seeking to become more like the way they think humans should be.  That's not meaningfully different from the Christian God manifesting Grace in order for worshippers to achieve Salvation. 

The principle difference is becoming a god oneself - apothosis - which I'll grant seems weird to western ears.  It's not totally alien to Christian theology (maybe the other Abrahamics, though I strongly doubt it.  Can't say for sure though), Ireneaus' work is couched in explicitly deified terms.

But yeah, as you say Jainism grew from a theistic origin.

[MasterMischief]

2) I'm not sure its resolvable.

Yes, pretty much everything boils down to 'Yeah!/Nu uh!'.

I think a large part of what convinces me of the negative position is that man has a history of making up gods.  In the absence of anything else, wolf has been cried one too many times.

[Kythia]

Well, this is kinda my point.  Man only has a history of making up gods if you take as your premise that gods are made up rather than incomplete glimpses of the divine.  Both our arguments, really, assume their respective conclusions.

[MasterMischief]

It seems to me that logic applies equally well to anything ever thought up.  Unicorns must exists because why else would someone every dream up unicorns and no one can prove there aren't unicorns.

[Kythia]

One specific place and time dreamt up unicorns (and dragons, and yetis, and <insert mythological creature here>).  Everyone, everywhere has dreamt up gods.  For me, that puts them in a different category.

[Rogue]

One specific place and time dreamt up unicorns (and dragons, and yetis, and <insert mythological creature here>).  Everyone, everywhere has dreamt up gods.  For me, that puts them in a different category.

Quite a few cultures have dreamed up Dragons. And while they take different shapes, they're all still Dragons. Just my opinion.

Also, pretty much every culture has Demons. Now these demons might be nothing a like. :) Does that mean that Demons fall under this rule as well?

Because Gods have taken quite a few different shapes and sizes. Most of them human because Humans are quite egocentric and enjoy thinking that the universe was created by something that was bigger than everything.


It's like why there are a lot of flood myths... because these places have floods. Why are there a lot of creation myth stories? Because everyone was created and likes to understand/come up with a reason why.

[Kythia]

Europe and China have dreamt up dragons, and the only thing they have in common is that, in English, we call them both dragons.  As I say in the thread, if we used different names for them, no one would bat an eyelid.  Ditto for demons - you flat out say they're nothing alike in various cultural incarnations. 

You're getting tied up on the words we use in English to describe something.  Look at the nature of the thing itself.  Or even just look at the fact that in other languages these things don't have the same name at all.  It makes it clear(er) you're talking about different things, rather than simply saying "these two different things are nothing alike but we call them both demons in English so they must be the same thing"

[Rogue]

Actually, I'm going based off the nature of the things. The things that we call demons in English are all responsible for negative things that happen. That's why the English translation became Demon, because at the base nature of the thing it's a demon.

As for Dragons.... Native American Dragon is right here. Also doesn't look anything like our dragon but that's not the point. The point is different cultures end up giving their creatures different appearances. Following that same logic, the Red Panda (a raccoon I believe) looks nothing like an American Raccoon. Does it stand to reason that Animals from different cultures would look different?

On the other hand, Humans all look kinda the same around the world. So the Gods at the top of the hierarchy all look like humans which are at the top of the food chain. Correlation or causation?

[Kythia]

Actually, I'm going based off the nature of the things. The things that we call demons in English are all responsible for negative things that happen. That's why the English translation became Demon, because at the base nature of the thing it's a demon.

Demons in Abrahamic religions aren't responsible for all bad things.  Nor are they in Shinto.  Or Hinduism.  or, actually, I can't think of a case where they are (though I do suspect there are some).

As for Dragons.... Native American Dragon is right here. Also doesn't look anything like our dragon but that's not the point. The point is different cultures end up giving their creatures different appearances. Following that same logic, the Red Panda (a raccoon I believe) looks nothing like an American Raccoon. Does it stand to reason that Animals from different cultures would look different?

See, I can't understand your point here.  What does that Dragon have in common with the one that St George fought?  Why are you insisting they are the same thing?  Other than the fact we've used the same word?  What properties does it share with the European dragon that makes you think they're one and the same?

On the other hand, Humans all look kinda the same around the world. So the Gods at the top of the hierarchy all look like humans which are at the top of the food chain. Correlation or causation?

Here, again, I don't understand.  We've talked earlier on this very page about gods who don't look like humans.  Neither correlation nor causation, simply made up statement.

[Rogue]

Demons in Abrahamic religions aren't responsible for all bad things.  Nor are they in Shinto.  Or Hinduism.  or, actually, I can't think of a case where they are (though I do suspect there are some).

See, I disagree. Demons, in general, represent the negatives of the world. Maybe they're not directly responsible but they definitely represent them.

For instance:

The word "oni" is sometimes speculated to be derived from on, the on'yomi reading of a character (隠) meaning to hide or conceal, as oni were originally invisible spirits or gods which caused disasters, disease, and other unpleasant things. These nebulous beings could also take on a variety of forms to deceive (and often devour) humans. Thus the Chinese character 鬼 (Mandarin Pinyin: guǐ; Jyutping: gwai2) meaning "ghost" came to be used for these formless creatures.

From my understanding of Abrahamic religion's Demons, they are sent to corrupt people and lead them to do evil as the Devil's servants.

So that's Shinto/Japanese demons and Abrahamic religions covered. Asura from Hindu cultures fulfill a similar role to Devil's/Satan.

I could probably go into every culture and find something that is the cause of negative things/is something meant to fight the Deities.

See, I can't understand your point here.  What does that Dragon have in common with the one that St George fought?  Why are you insisting they are the same thing?  Other than the fact we've used the same word?  What properties does it share with the European dragon that makes you think they're one and the same?

It's easier in Western and Asian cultures as the two dragons are reptilian in nature though it's typical in Western mythos for the Dragons to breath fire but in Eastern mythos for the Dragons to have many elements, perhaps because random fires were more common in the western areas where these dragons came to be. What's actually amusing is the etymology of the word Dragon which comes from Greek δράκων (drákōn), "dragon, serpent of huge size, water-snake". Much closer to the Eastern Dragon than a typical Western Dragon.

Also, I was merely pointing out another culture that has what we'd call a "Dragon." It's reptilian in nature. Those aren't feathers if you look at the art near the tips of the wings. Instead of elongating the feathers, as native american artists would to represent the long feathers a bird has at the end of a wing, there are spikes, much more indicative of reptiles.

Here, again, I don't understand.  We've talked earlier on this very page about gods who don't look like humans.  Neither correlation nor causation, simply made up statement.

This is strictly the result of being rushed out of a room and not fully finishing/revising my thought so I'm not contradicting myself... >.>

On the other hand, Humans all look kinda the same around the world. So the Gods at the top of the hierarchy all look like humans which are at the top of the food chain. Correlation or causation?

Basically, what I was going to go for was the Humanistic qualities of most deities around the world, whether they're fully human or not. Most non-human deities have human parts still. And most of those religions died out (in the case of Egyption mythology) or were in religions where the humans in question had a high amount of respect for animals in general. And even then, most have humanistic qualities.

[Kythia]

See, I disagree. Demons, in general, represent the negatives of the world. Maybe they're not directly responsible but they definitely represent them.

Yes, this is in part my fault.  I managed to misread your statement as "responsible for all bad things" instead of "all responsible for bad things."  Sorry about that.  Wish I could (truthfully) claim I was dyslexic or something to make that not my fault, but I'm gonna have to fall back on "idiot".

However.  This:

Demons, in general, represent the negatives of the world. Maybe they're not directly responsible but they definitely represent them.

is somehow both so broad as to be meaningless and yet at the same time not broad enough.  In order:

Sure.  If you define "demon" as "evil spirit" then yes, they're commonplace so far as I know.  And if you define "unicorn" as "mythological beast" then they're also universal.    But you're lumping together a whole load of utterly unrelated stuff by doing so, by making your sole criteria "evil spirit."  It's like, errrr, its like claiming that everyone believes in UFOs because you've defined UFOs as "something or other from somewhere else".

And yet, on the same time, how do you explain the cultures where evil is an act of a polytheistic deity?  Zoroastrianism springs very readily to mind.  Your definition fails there as well unless you're claiming Ahriman is a demon rather than a deity. 

So even by an overbroad definition of Demon, your argument about universality fails.

It's easier in Western and Asian cultures as the two dragons are reptilian in nature though it's typical in Western mythos for the Dragons to breath fire but in Eastern mythos for the Dragons to have many elements, perhaps because random fires were more common in the western areas where these dragons came to be. What's actually amusing is the etymology of the word Dragon which comes from Greek δράκων (drákōn), "dragon, serpent of huge size, water-snake". Much closer to the Eastern Dragon than a typical Western Dragon.

Also, I was merely pointing out another culture that has what we'd call a "Dragon." It's reptilian in nature. Those aren't feathers if you look at the art near the tips of the wings. Instead of elongating the feathers, as native american artists would to represent the long feathers a bird has at the end of a wing, there are spikes, much more indicative of reptiles.

Fine, all fine.  But I ask again, what traits does a dragon have that makes you think these two (I'll allow you not to cover the North American one if you like) are the same thing.  For example, books have pages with symbols on them.  Nothing (within that definition which obviously includes magazines) that is like that isn't a book, nothing that is a book isn't like that.  What do you think a dragon is?  It seems to me that your definition is little more than "mythical reptile"

This is strictly the result of being rushed out of a room and not fully finishing/revising my thought so I'm not contradicting myself... >.>

heh, can't count the number of times I've done the same thing.

Basically, what I was going to go for was the Humanistic qualities of most deities around the world, whether they're fully human or not. Most non-human deities have human parts still. And most of those religions died out (in the case of Egyption mythology) or were in religions where the humans in question had a high amount of respect for animals in general. And even then, most have humanistic qualities.

Most.

I don't give a stuff about "most".  Again, we return to the book definition.  "Human or near human" forms no part of the definition of a god purely because there are so many examples of things that are unarguably gods that aren't human or near human.  My argument is entirely about universality.  And besides, you seem to be ignoring the huge number of gods that are the sun, the moon, mountains, rivers, and other natural features.

[Rogue]

I don't give a stuff about "most".  Again, we return to the book definition.  "Human or near human" forms no part of the definition of a god purely because there are so many examples of things that are unarguably gods that aren't human or near human.  My argument is entirely about universality.  And besides, you seem to be ignoring the huge number of gods that are the sun, the moon, mountains, rivers, and other natural features.

I'm actually not. I looked up a vast number of deities before I posted that just to make sure and everyone that I'd found that had a physical description was human in nature. If you would like to point me in the right direction for ones that are Gods that are only one of those things please do. :)

heh, can't count the number of times I've done the same thing.

Yay! I'm not alone! :)

Fine, all fine.  But I ask again, what traits does a dragon have that makes you think these two (I'll allow you not to cover the North American one if you like) are the same thing.  For example, books have pages with symbols on them.  Nothing (within that definition which obviously includes magazines) that is like that isn't a book, nothing that is a book isn't like that.  What do you think a dragon is?  It seems to me that your definition is little more than "mythical reptile"

Because I grew up learning about different cultures at the same time, Dragons to me are Mythical creatures who are reptilian in nature, generally larger than a human, and have some form of magic attached to them. Really broad, yes, but it doesn't help that I grew up thinking of both Eastern Dragons and Western Dragons as dragons. To me, it's kinda like how Red Pandas are Weasels (which I just looked up to double check. Raccoon was an old definition...  :-[ ). They don't look a like! But they are.

And yet, on the same time, how do you explain the cultures where evil is an act of a polytheistic deity?  Zoroastrianism springs very readily to mind.  Your definition fails there as well unless you're claiming Ahriman is a demon rather than a deity. 

So even by an overbroad definition of Demon, your argument about universality fails.

I actually double checked Zoroastrianism and they actually put Ahriman on the same level as Lucifer/Satan, not it's own level. I believe this to be an argument in the theological world though, so I will still answer my thoughts on this.

In a past time, I believe that Lucifer/Satan would be put on the same level as Ahriman. But it depends on how equivalent the cultures find Evil and Good.

Most monotheistic cultures want their Benevolent Deities to be stronger than Malevolent lesser beings. In some polytheistic cases, Deities seem to be souped up humans with just supernatural powers (Zeus/ the Greek pantheon for instance). The Greek Gods were famous almost for how human they were. Jealousy and hate and human emotion seemed to drip from their stories. So it made sense in most cases that the deities were both good and bad since humans were both good and bad.

But then you look at cultures such as Hinduism where certain sects believe that all of the Gods are actually different aspects of the one God, representing a multifaceted God. Yet this isn't typical of a God that you'd see, because most monotheistic Deities are either malevolent or benevolent.

In my opinion, most evil deities are souped up demons. Or it's the other way, where demons are lesser versions of deities.

Unicorns/mythical beasts are different to me and I understand where you're coming from. But keep in mind, most places didn't have horses. So horses are a thing that came from Europe... where unicorns come from.

Creatures and God are also very different to me. God/Gods typically rule entire universes or worlds, not one area. Mythical creatures, to me, would evolve independently of each other and could therefore be extremely different. Also, some are specific to certain environments... Kappas for instance are only in Japan. It's not uncommon for certain species to be specific to a specific set of islands, especially without contact with others. Mythical creatures are much more... creature than supernatural in a lot of cases. And a lot of deities are either shapeshifters or look relatively human or don't appear on earth at all. So one could argue the existence or former existence of mythological creatures to me, even though I don't believe in them due to lack of evidence and because of how connected to earth they are they would leave some evidence.

[Kythia]

I'm actually not. I looked up a vast number of deities before I posted that just to make sure and everyone that I'd found that had a physical description was human in nature. If you would like to point me in the right direction for ones that are Gods that are only one of those things please do. :)

Hmmm.  That's what Totemism is.  From 20 seconds on wikipedia:

The Birhor from East India: "According to one imperfect list of 37 clans, 12 are based on animals, 10 on plants, 8 on Hindu castes and localities, and the rest on objects."

The Kpelle of West Africa: "Kpelle totems include animals, plants, and natural phenomena."

and that's bypassing the ones that only use animals, which still pass your "not human in nature" test. 

Because I grew up learning about different cultures at the same time, Dragons to me are Mythical creatures who are reptilian in nature, generally larger than a human, and have some form of magic attached to them. Really broad, yes, but it doesn't help that I grew up thinking of both Eastern Dragons and Western Dragons as dragons. To me, it's kinda like how Red Pandas are Weasels (which I just looked up to double check. Raccoon was an old definition...  :-[ ). They don't look a like! But they are.

So a Naga is a dragon?  The Feathered Serpent of Mesoamerican mythology?  The World Serpent of Norse mythology?  The biblical Leviathan?

Quote from Rogue spoilered for space

I actually double checked Zoroastrianism and they actually put Ahriman on the same level as Lucifer/Satan, not it's own level. I believe this to be an argument in the theological world though, so I will still answer my thoughts on this.

In a past time, I believe that Lucifer/Satan would be put on the same level as Ahriman. But it depends on how equivalent the cultures find Evil and Good.

Most monotheistic cultures want their Benevolent Deities to be stronger than Malevolent lesser beings. In some polytheistic cases, Deities seem to be souped up humans with just supernatural powers (Zeus/ the Greek pantheon for instance). The Greek Gods were famous almost for how human they were. Jealousy and hate and human emotion seemed to drip from their stories. So it made sense in most cases that the deities were both good and bad since humans were both good and bad.

But then you look at cultures such as Hinduism where certain sects believe that all of the Gods are actually different aspects of the one God, representing a multifaceted God. Yet this isn't typical of a God that you'd see, because most monotheistic Deities are either malevolent or benevolent.

In my opinion, most evil deities are souped up demons. Or it's the other way, where demons are lesser versions of deities.

Unicorns/mythical beasts are different to me and I understand where you're coming from. But keep in mind, most places didn't have horses. So horses are a thing that came from Europe... where unicorns come from.

Creatures and God are also very different to me. God/Gods typically rule entire universes or worlds, not one area. Mythical creatures, to me, would evolve independently of each other and could therefore be extremely different. Also, some are specific to certain environments... Kappas for instance are only in Japan. It's not uncommon for certain species to be specific to a specific set of islands, especially without contact with others. Mythical creatures are much more... creature than supernatural in a lot of cases. And a lot of deities are either shapeshifters or look relatively human or don't appear on earth at all. So one could argue the existence or former existence of mythological creatures to me, even though I don't believe in them due to lack of evidence and because of how connected to earth they are they would leave some evidence.

OK.  I'm honestly not clear on the distinction you're drawing between "creatures" and "gods" or on a few other specifics of your point, but I think I grab the general gist.

It seems to me we're using the word "god" slightly differently.  I would argue you are attaching a load of baggage to the word that doesn't belong there, and that there are examples of things that are unarguably gods that would be ruled out by your definitions (Ganga, goddess of the Ganges, rules one area for example). 

It also seems that, towards the end, you're agreeing with my point about universality of gods and corresponding lack of universality of creatures - have I read you right?  If so, awesome.  We agree.

[Rogue]

*laughs* Yes, I agree on the universality of deities in general. I don't agree that this actually makes an argument for Deities existing. :/ Especially since I can logic out similarly that magical creatures can evolve independently of each other. Because places such as Australia exist.