About What Should We Be Agnostic
Jonathan Rowe on Aug 6th 2008
I’m not agnostic on Thor or Zeus (though I must say it would be really cool if they existed as superpowerful beings, as they do in Dungeons and Dragons and comic books, not necessarily as “Gods” with absolute dominion over us). All sane folks are atheists on Zeus and Thor. Hard atheists often argue that all conceptions of “God” are the equivalent of Zeus and Thor. Or, when it comes to the universe ultimate boiling down to something other than atheistic materialism, as Jason Kuznicki eloquently writes:
If one is to be agnostic about whether a deistic god created the universe, should we also be agnostic about the question of whether the observable universe is supported on the back of a tortoise, one resting just outside our ability to detect it?
Well, the tortoise example is kind of ridiculous to conceive of (again, Atlas would be cooler). But let me explain something about which I’m not atheistic, something towards which I’m quite agnostic and open minded:
Philosophers have used the examples of brains in a vat, a theme brilliantly played up in the movie “The Matrix.”
Let’s even further modernize the example. We can conceive of created consciousnesses in a computer program. Think about current experiments with Artificial Intelligence. Think about millions of years of scientific progress and a computer programmer being able to simulate artificial intelligence to think that they live in a real material word which is just a program, an illusion. I most certainly AM agnostic and open to ultimate reality boiling down to something like that. Indeed, with enough scientific progress, one day we’ll be like gods. And it’s entirely plausible that something so advanced that we might consider “godlike” started the universe and seeded the Earth with life.
The question is still begged: What cause that? Who knows? It could be caused or uncaused? The point is, such a possibility is entirely plausible. And as such we should be open minded about it and related plausible hypotheses about origins.
Filed in The Basement, The Belfry, The Biosphere
All sane folks are atheists on Zeus and Thor.
I’ve heard this before too, but why? Is there really any reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian God is a more plausible reality? Cause I don’t see one.
Indeed, with enough scientific progress, one day we’ll be like gods.
This is a very dangerous statement. Humanity has neither the mental or moral capacity to act like gods, but I wouldn’t put it past us to try… and I wouldn’t want to see the consequences either. Isn’t that the ultimate in social engineering?
Of course this discussion brings to mind a host of original series Star Trek episodes, which I’ve just discovered on CBS.com. Just figured I’d tag that on, even though I’m sure The Matrix has updated graphics.
I agree with Greyson. I don’t see why all sane people should be atheistic about the pagan conception of divinity but not the Judeo-Christian one. Is believing in Kali insane, too, or is that acceptable because a substantial number of people still do it? One possibility is about as likely as the others, as far as I can see.
Besides, some people do still worship Zeus and Thor, and there’s probably a sane Wiccan out there somewhere.
I used to practically worship Thor when younger and still keep up with the comic.
Jon, I like you imagination :-)
Wikipedia associates agnostic with a lack or absence of knowledge.
As such, we are all agnostic with regards to all claims which are unknowable, or those which we have no knowledge of (evidence for or against).
Perhaps you are applying the word “agnostic” to a “absence/lack of belief”, which doesn’t really fit into any popular descriptive. However, referring to Wikipedia (again), it may be properly described as a form of Atheism ;-)
In any event, might I prod you into making some comments regarding you define “agnostic” with regards to the context of your post?
Count me with Greyson & tilts.
The point of the Zeus & Thor argument, it seems to me, is not to claim that the idea of some god existing is implausible and should thus be disbelieved.
It’s to point out that any specific god concept is implausible. There’s no more evidence to support the Christian God than there is to support Zeus or Thor.
I consider myself an atheist, but I don’t claim to be certain there is no god. I simply disbelieve in gods the way I disbelieve in sea serpents. Either is admittedly plausible, but neither is supported by adequate evidence, and the ‘negative evidence’ (evidence we should if they were real) weighs against their existence.
You can argue around that by playing with definitions. Hence, sea serpents do exist if we consider oarfish to be sea serpents. God may exist if we define whatever ’caused’ the universe to be god. Neither approach is faithful to what most people mean when discussing sea serpents or gods.
Thus, I think the most honest description of myself is simply ‘atheist.’
I’m not agnostic on Thor or Zeus (though I must say it would be really cool if they existed as superpowerful beings, as they do in Dungeons and Dragons and comic books, not necessarily as “Gods” with absolute dominion over us).
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that this is just how ancient cultures did view Thor and Zeus–as powerful, but not omnipotent.
And frankly, I think that such a scheme of non-omnipotent, non-benevolent polytheism is much more suited to the world as we know it than the monotheistic model that is presently more popular.
The world is simply to random, too diverse, and too seemingly purposeless to be created and controlled by a single omnipotent being. But when one considers the idea that our world was created by multiple intelligences with many separate goals and agendas, theistic creation seems less unlikely.
All sane folks are atheists on Zeus and Thor.
I’ve heard this before too, but why? Is there really any reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian God is a more plausible reality? Cause I don’t see one.
Really? I don’t remember the Judeo-Christian God running around on earth, lusting after and raping virgins when the mood struck him. And didn’t Zeus’ Dad eat his own children so they couldn’t supplant him?
Anyway, it’s apples and oranges, again. The J.C. God is the Creator of the Universe; he’s not just another dopey God fighting with his wife.
Really? I don’t remember the Judeo-Christian God running around on earth, lusting after and raping virgins when the mood struck him.
I don’t know about rape, but impregnating a virgin is certainly part of the party line, and someone else’s fiancée to boot!
Ben,
I categorize myself as an “agnostic-deist-theist” in that order.
BLS, the legend of the J. C. God is not evidence of the J. C. God … same for the legend of Zeus.
… and no offense, but regarding “apples and oranges” … but they’re both fruit to me ;-)
Seriously though, I infer from your comment that you’re offended by Jon’s analogy. If the doctrinal belief associated with your particular sect of your religion gives you comfort … excellent! That is one of the founding motives for our religious freedom.
In any event, in my experience with Jon he has never posted anything that hinted at an intent to offend. If you were offended, you own that … it is all yours.
I hope that is not the case … and that the implication of offense was the result of a rapid post inspired by passion for your faith.
To be clear, do you imply that you believe in but do not know of a God?
I’m not actually interested in a qualification, regarding the specifics, of what you believe, but hope to understand where you draw a line between knowing and believing … although the difference can be subtle.
If not readily apparent, I will admit now to a hang-up regarding the use of the word agnostic, when used in the context of believing … rather than knowing ;-)
If I’m digging too deep in to your personal space, say the word … no offense will be taken.
The God of the Bible is so personal and humanlike in his characteristics that I’m convinced if He is the real God then He is a created and super evolved being who just started our universe (or life on Earth) as an experiment. A less personal, knowable, but more powerful entity created Him.
In this sense, the Biblical God is not “infallible” any more than any particular human is infallible but just has power over us in the same way that we have power over animals.
It’s funny but this is close to what the Mormons, after Ben Franklin, believed. I can see a super advanced white bearded dude creating us (like an author who creates and writes characters in a novel); but I can’t see entire reality resting on that.
It also explains why Lucifer and humans might rebel against such a character. Lucifer, presumably limited in his power, is way smarter and more powerful than even the smartest of us. There’s no way such a character would challenge a being whom he knows has INFINITE power; that would be stupid. Thus, the bearded dude’s power must be finite.
Ben,
I’m “agnostic” on ultimate knowledge. But “deistic” and “theistic” on matters of “hopes” and “hunches.” I guess as an optimist, I hope for a happy ending. :)
Genuinely honest and optimistic! … Those are religious sentiments I hope we can all appreciate :-)
BLS, the legend of the J. C. God is not evidence of the J. C. God … same for the legend of Zeus.
… and no offense, but regarding “apples and oranges” … but they’re both fruit to me ;-)
Seriously though, I infer from your comment that you’re offended by Jon’s analogy. If the doctrinal belief associated with your particular sect of your religion gives you comfort … excellent! That is one of the founding motives for our religious freedom.
In any event, in my experience with Jon he has never posted anything that hinted at an intent to offend. If you were offended, you own that … it is all yours.
I hope that is not the case … and that the implication of offense was the result of a rapid post inspired by passion for your faith.
Well, first of all: I was responding to Greyson, not to Jon.
Second of all, I’m not trying to argue either for or against a “legend” or “evidence.” I was making a simple point that there is in fact quite a large difference between Zeus/Thor and the Judeo-Christian God - and, following that, that Zeus is, in fact, a far less credible idea.
Third of all, I’m simply engaging in conversation; I’m wondering why I’ve been automatically pegged as “offended” because of this. I asked a question, that’s all; why is that a problem? Why are you going on and on about my being “offended,” rather than simply responding to the question? It seems like you’re the one who’s offended, actually. I’m really not, in the slightest.
I don’t know about rape, but impregnating a virgin is certainly part of the party line, and someone else’s fiancée to boot!
Well, you’re right about that. But that was only the one time, and it wasn’t because God had tied one on and was out lusting for wenches.
And He did ask….
Sorry, I confused your offense tone with you being offended :-(
And He did ask….
In the narrative I recall on the point, He sent a minion to inform the young woman in question after the fact that she was already, um, knocked up.
Is there really any reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian God is a more plausible reality? Cause I don’t see one.
Really? I don’t remember the Judeo-Christian God running around on earth, lusting after and raping virgins when the mood struck him. And didn’t Zeus’ Dad eat his own children so they couldn’t supplant him?
Aside from the whole Mary incident, the Bible describes quite a bit of smiting, genocide, salt-pillar turning, and stomping on the heathen like grapes on the part of the JC God. But granting that He’s nevertheless a nicer guy than Zeus, which is probably true, I don’t see why that makes Him any more plausible. The universe is hardly idyllic; there could be vicious gods as easily as benevolent ones.
Anyway, it’s apples and oranges, again. The J.C. God is the Creator of the Universe; he’s not just another dopey God fighting with his wife.
Some gods get credited with universe creation, like Jehovah, Brahma, Allah, Atum, and Ahura Mazda, while some don’t, like Zeus and Thor. Again, I don’t see why the role a particular god plays in a mythology makes him more or less plausible.
If we’re all gods, why do my feet hurt all the time? I guess that makes me Hephaestus. I’m a decent craftsman, after all, especially around the barbecue, and I’m married to an Aphrodite.
OK, I’m down with that. Some people call me a Vulcan.
Please read some CS Lewis, at least.
You cant argue fairly when
1) You dont have the facts
2) You only hear and read biased viewpoints
I’ve read C.S. Lewis. I was impressed by his style and unimpressed by his substance. So many of his arguments amounted to “well, here’s something else that reminds me of Christianity. So Christianity must be true.”
Things remind me of Alice in Wonderland all the time. Therefore…
Aside from the whole Mary incident, the Bible describes quite a bit of smiting, genocide, salt-pillar turning, and stomping on the heathen like grapes on the part of the JC God. But granting that He’s nevertheless a nicer guy than Zeus, which is probably true, I don’t see why that makes Him any more plausible. The universe is hardly idyllic; there could be vicious gods as easily as benevolent ones.
Yes, the early Bible does describe those things - but of course, many of us aren’t Biblical literalists. We assume that these things describe the people from very, very long ago, and the inside of their heads, rather than any actual action of God. They are etiological tales, most of them - there really was a salt pillar in the area, I believe, for one example - and these incidents disappear rather early on in the Bible. The understanding of God evolves, in fact, right before our eyes. (And actually, the “caring for orphans and widows and the poor” thread runs through the Bible from beginning to end, although it does get much more emphasis later on in the Prophets.)
Is any of this true for Zeus? Are there non-literalist followers of Zeus? Does Zeus provide an ongoing source of intellectual/artistic/moral inspiration? Has the understanding of Zeus evolved?
(There are vicious Gods in the Bible and in the conception of the JC God, too, of course; fallen angels, they’re called. Satan, etc.)
Some gods get credited with universe creation, like Jehovah, Brahma, Allah, Atum, and Ahura Mazda, while some don’t, like Zeus and Thor. Again, I don’t see why the role a particular god plays in a mythology makes him more or less plausible.
Because one of the central questions to which God is the answer is, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”. Another is, “What are we here for?”.
Zeus answers neither of these very reasonable questions.
In the narrative I recall on the point, He sent a minion to inform the young woman in question after the fact that she was already, um, knocked up.
I don’t think so. Here’s the verse in question:
All is in the future tense. Now, this could be a poor translation - something I’d have to check.
And Mary gives assent here, clearly.
In any case, it’s hardly the same sort of thing. The JC God doesn’t lust after human females and descend and rape them merely to satisfy his own desires and because he’s frustrated in his marriage. The two things can hardly even be compared.
(King James, BTW.)
(Ooops, I forgot the “assent” part of the quotation. Here it is:
“Some gods get credited with universe creation, like Jehovah, Brahma, Allah, Atum, and Ahura Mazda, while some don’t, like Zeus and Thor. Again, I don’t see why the role a particular god plays in a mythology makes him more or less plausible.”
Aren’t we using one word gods to refer to two different types of proposed beings?
Jehovah, Bramah, Allah and Ahura Mazda (I don’t know about Atum) are proposed as makers and rulers of the whole universe. Zeus, Thor and so on are the personification of natural events, storms in the case of those two.
The questions is there are personality responsible for the existence of the universe? and is there a personality responsible for one tiny bit of it? sound fairly distinct to me irrespective of how those beings are described.
Note: I am not offering answers to either question at this point, just suggesting they are different and it is reasonable to expect the proposed answers are different as well.
The understanding of God evolves, in fact, right before our eyes.
Well, except that the whole stomping on the heathen like grapes thing happens in Revelation, which is last in the text and at least near last in the chronology of the writing. And Jesus talks a lot about people getting cast into Hell. Jehovah does mellow the further you get from the original herding tribes, but He still knows how to bring the lightning, so to speak.
Is any of this true for Zeus? Are there non-literalist followers of Zeus?
Yes. By late antiquity educated people didn’t think Zeus was a guy who lived on top of Mount Olympus, and they were more than a little embarrassed by all the stories of his skirt chasing. And there are Wiccans today who get quite offended when people go around calling their gods rapists, because those stories aren’t literal and shouldn’t be taken that way.
Does Zeus provide an ongoing source of intellectual/artistic/moral inspiration?
Yes. See the Odyssey, Illiad, and the Theogeny. If we want to expand a little to include other Greek gods–it was a pantheon, after all–then we get all the Greek tragedies and comedies, which were written in honor of Dionysus. Indeed, the word “tragedy” comes from the Greek for “goat,” the animal sacrificed to Dionysus at the celebrations.
And the Greek myths are full of morality. Virtue is often rewarded, vice usually punished. Courage, hospitality, and wisdom are regularly held up for imitation.
Has the understanding of Zeus evolved?
Yes. See above. Over the centuries Zeus evolved from a thunder god who harassed the local maidens to a more abstract and remote father figure from whom all good issued.
Because one of the central questions to which God is the answer is, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”. Another is, “What are we here for?”
Yes, your God does answer those questions in a particular way. Other gods answer them differently, or don’t answer them at all. It’d be nicer (maybe) to have the kind of god who can tell you the meaning of life, but I don’t see why the fact that it’s nicer makes it more plausible. Maybe the gods that really exist aren’t the kind of gods who know those things, or they know and aren’t inclined to tell you. That would make dealing with them frustrating, but it wouldn’t make them any less real. Jehovah may well be a more desirable god than Zeus, but I still don’t see why that makes him a more likely god.
The questions is there are personality responsible for the existence of the universe? and is there a personality responsible for one tiny bit of it? sound fairly distinct to me irrespective of how those beings are described.
Good point. They do seem like different kinds of entities, although they often coexist in a mythology. It’s probably easier to imagine a personal god of thunderstorms than a personal god of the whole universe. And in polytheistic religions the creator god often doesn’t have much of a personality, when it can be called a god at all.
It’s turtles all the way down. Or perhaps they are sitting on the back of a superturtle. Or perhaps the infinite column of turtles is the superturtle. Or perhaps there is a loop of turtles sitting on one another. Or perhaps the turtle is just falling, like the whale created by the Infinite Improbability Drive, towards the surface of some friendly-looking planet. And soon it will meet the ground?
Yes. See the Odyssey, Illiad, and the Theogeny.
The key word was “ongoing.”
I would be interested to know what the modern conception of Zeus actually entails, though.
Is he no longer like the next-door neighbor on a terrific bender? What’s his function? What does he do with his time these days? Also, whom does he inspire to great heights of moral rectitude? Anything on record like that?
If he’s now “a more abstract and remote father figure from whom all good issued,” then he has indeed evolved - into the Judeo-Christian God. Whaddya know about that?
Yes, your God does answer those questions in a particular way. Other gods answer them differently, or don’t answer them at all. It’d be nicer (maybe) to have the kind of god who can tell you the meaning of life, but I don’t see why the fact that it’s nicer makes it more plausible. Maybe the gods that really exist aren’t the kind of gods who know those things, or they know and aren’t inclined to tell you. That would make dealing with them frustrating, but it wouldn’t make them any less real. Jehovah may well be a more desirable god than Zeus, but I still don’t see why that makes him a more likely god.
But to make this argument, you have to posit a whole pantheon of useless (if not malicious) gods.
That right there makes the JC God more plausible, I do believe; the universe is nothing if not economical. One Creator God is just a whole lot easier to deal with - as you note - and to imagine. If we’re talking “plausibility,” then I think you’ve answered your own question.
“That right there makes the JC God more plausible, I do believe; the universe is nothing if not economical. One Creator God is just a whole lot easier to deal with ”
Then no God would be the most economical and plausible of all, correct? Does the fact that the universe is economical really apply to something defined as outside of the universe?
“The JC God doesn’t lust after human females and descend and rape them merely to satisfy his own desires and because he’s frustrated in his marriage. The two things can hardly even be compared.”
No, the JC God just annihilates the entire earth except for one family because of his frustration and jealousy and overall innate wrathfulness (and this is just one example); Zeus comes off as quite a good guy in comparison. Even leaving that aside, I agree with the other posters that the personalities and hierarchy of these gods have about zip to do with their plausibility.
The key word was “ongoing.”
Well, the Wiccan fringe aside, classical Greek polytheism is a dead religion. But even as a dead religion it inspires a lot of art, from James Joyce’s Ulysses to the Cohen Brothers’ O Brother Where Art Thou. The Lyre of Orpheus by Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds has got to be better than any Christian rock.
I would be interested to know what the modern conception of Zeus actually entails, though.
You’d have to ask a pagan/Wiccan about that. Honestly, I think the Celtic gods are more popular than the Greek even among them, though, because the average person doesn’t know enough about Celts to point out where they’re screwing up the mythology. I’m sure you could find a Zeus worshipper if you looked hard enough, though. It’s the internet.
If he’s now “a more abstract and remote father figure from whom all good issued,” then he has indeed evolved - into the Judeo-Christian God. Whaddya know about that?
Well, except for a tiny minority of Wiccans, who are themselves a tiny minority, Zeus is not now a god that anyone believes in. However, the concept of Zeus had evolved beyond Harry Thunderer in the educated classes by the Greek golden age, which started a little after 500BC. That would make it about 500 years before the birth of Jesus. So, no, it could not have been a version of the Christian God, nor had the Greeks at that time had much contact with the Hebrews. And they retained their polytheism, believing in increasingly refined versions of the other gods, as well.
Not all polytheism is primitive, and Hindus would probably not appreciate your implication that anything involving abstraction, or a god who is a source of good from on-high, or a parental figure, is simply Christianity in drag. Come to think of it, Muslims have a father god from whom all good issues, and unlike the Greeks they’re even monotheists. Zoroastrians, too, and their religion predates yours. Just because some aspect of a religion reminds you of Christianity doesn’t mean the religion is ripping Christianity off. It might be just the opposite.
But I already conceded the Christian God was a nicer guy than Zeus. I just don’t see why that makes him more probable than Zeus. You seem to be suggesting that the nicer an idea is, the more likely it is to be true.
But to make this argument, you have to posit a whole pantheon of useless (if not malicious) gods.
No. You just have to posit that such a pantheon is as possible as any other configuration of the divine.
That right there makes the JC God more plausible, I do believe; the universe is nothing if not economical.
Billions of stars in this galaxy alone, and billions of galaxies stretching out in all directions. Millions of forms of life in this one little world. I’d say the universe in which we find ourselves is defined by diversity as much as economy. Why not a diversity of gods? You no doubt think the argument from economy is stronger than the argument from diversity; a Hindu would no doubt think the opposite.
But assume that for some reason “economy” however defined makes one god more plausible than two. That does nothing to prove the one god is your God, rather than Allah or Ahura Mazda. And if economy says one god is more plausible than two, wouldn’t it also say that zero gods is more plausible than one?
One Creator God is just a whole lot easier to deal with - as you note - and to imagine. If we’re talking “plausibility,” then I think you’ve answered your own question.
A universe where Newtonian physics didn’t break down at near light speeds would be a lot easier to deal with and imagine, too. But it’s not true. Just because something is easier to deal with or imagine doesn’t make it more plausible.
And I actually think I’d find it easier to deal with a pantheon, all things considered, but I’m probably just weird.
Haha, wow, I go away for less than 24 hours, and this thread explodes! This must be the workings of Loki!
I’ll admit that what bls has posited has perhaps made a strong case that Judeo-Christian theology provides an understanding of our reality that conforms easier to our current society, but unless you then make the jump that 1) our society is a direct reflection of divine will, and 2) Ancient Greek societies weren’t such a reflection, then I don’t think it makes any real statement that J.C.’s God is more plausible than Zeus, Thor, or any other theology for that matter.
I can certainly see how moving from a polytheistic view, which parallels a world with far fewer and weaker centralized governments/powers, to a monotheistic model would be a natural progression accompanying the expansion from loosely affiliated city-states to massive centrally-administered empires. It only makes sense that if you are determined to create an empire of dominion over various unaffiliated peoples that you would try to mold the discussion to focus on the omnipotence and superiority of your theology, while co-opting the symbology and in many cases the mythology of the domineered (see the Egypt-Greek-Roman progression, or more recently that of the Pagan-Christian.) Then again, since I’m not a big fan of this imperialism, I tend to believe that massive human-driven state activity, whether at the Vatican or Rome, tends to obscure the underlying natural reality, and thus this line of thought might make a stronger case for “primitive” societies’ conceptions of theology, which are much less likely to be subject to humanity’s corrupting expressions of desire and power.
My own personal opinion, for what its worth, is that the various established religions, just as their widely-forgotten predecessors, are all human-driven interpretations of an attempt to understand the complex world around us. These attempts, being human-driven, are subject to many limitations deriving not only from cognitive restrictions, but very much so from limitations of our imperfect language(s). It seems most likely to me that the powers that order the universe are at such a different magnitude of complexity that humanity will rarely be able to comprehend their workings, much less express an accurate interpretation of it in an easily digestible form (i.e. “the book.”) Which, (*places tongue in cheek,) sort of reminds me of something some bright commenter said a week ago.
This of course shouldn’t stop us from trying, but it might suggest that our efforts are best applied to intrapersonal discussion, or at least to avoiding the assumption infallibility in the results of our interpersonal discussion to the point that we denigrate others beliefs, or worse yet, actively work to repress them.
I second what Tilts wrote about the continued relevance of the Greco-Roman mythos. The self-titled Hercules and Love Affair is one of the best albums of the year so far, if you ask me. And many critics, too.
It’s also very, very pagan. One of the songs is simply a hymn of praise to Athena. (Is she one of the “malicious” or “useless” entities of the mythos? She seems neither to me.)
But let’s turn the question around: If Christianity no longer had an active literature, would it be less credible as a set of propositions? Are Islam and Judaism more credible because of continued Jewish and Islamic literature?
Extreme props for the Hercules and Love Affair reference. Your taste in music seems to match your mastery of writing and arguing.
Then no God would be the most economical and plausible of all, correct? Does the fact that the universe is economical really apply to something defined as outside of the universe?
Well, perhaps - if you have some clue as to the origin of the universe that nobody else does, that is. Certainly there’s a big honking gap there that could be filled by - oops, God.
In any case, the question wasn’t God vs. no God; the question was JC God vs. Zeus: which is more plausible?
I just find it interesting that Occam would normally be invoked to pare down the number of gods to at most One - but instead Zeus and Thor and everybody else is considered “as plausible.” I don’t get it, really.
No, the JC God just annihilates the entire earth except for one family because of his frustration and jealousy and overall innate wrathfulness (and this is just one example); Zeus comes off as quite a good guy in comparison. Even leaving that aside, I agree with the other posters that the personalities and hierarchy of these gods have about zip to do with their plausibility.
Actually, the JC God annihilated the entire earth because the people were evil. It says so right straight out.
It’s a pretty good motive, actually, when you think about it.
Billions of stars in this galaxy alone, and billions of galaxies stretching out in all directions. Millions of forms of life in this one little world. I’d say the universe in which we find ourselves is defined by diversity as much as economy. Why not a diversity of gods? You no doubt think the argument from economy is stronger than the argument from diversity; a Hindu would no doubt think the opposite.
But assume that for some reason “economy” however defined makes one god more plausible than two. That does nothing to prove the one god is your God, rather than Allah or Ahura Mazda. And if economy says one god is more plausible than two, wouldn’t it also say that zero gods is more plausible than one?
Well, you’ve got a point there, about the diversity; there’s definitely a lot of stuff around. But “economy” just means that “all things being equal, the simplest explanation is best,” doesn’t it?
Anyway, that’s what I meant by it.
I’m not arguing, BTW, for “my God.” I’m arguing the case just as stated above: Judeo-Christian God vs. Zeus/Thor. I do think the JC God has certain important things going for him, I admit - or, rather, that the story is tip-top and that all the stuff that’s grown out of it - like Western Civilization, just for one small instance - is really quite interesting and impressive.
But the discussion is really about Monotheistic Creator God vs. Zeus/Thor and the gang. I can’t really understand why these guys would be considered “as plausible,” that’s all - especially when most people have a hard enough time dealing with the idea of only one God.
But you know the old joke, I’m sure: when the Trinitarian asked the Unitarian if he believed in One God, the latter responded: “Oh, at most.”
I’ll admit that what bls has posited has perhaps made a strong case that Judeo-Christian theology provides an understanding of our reality that conforms easier to our current society, but unless you then make the jump that 1) our society is a direct reflection of divine will, and 2) Ancient Greek societies weren’t such a reflection, then I don’t think it makes any real statement that J.C.’s God is more plausible than Zeus, Thor, or any other theology for that matter.
The thing is, though: Ancient Greece was a slave state. Women weren’t citizens and had no rights of any kind.
The basic fact is that we - human beings - came out of the jungle. It’s not like homo sapiens sprung full-grown from the head of - oops! - Zeus. We were all barbarians once - if we’re not, still.
So if all that’s true - then how did we get from there to here? I mean, if a couple of thousand years ago we’d have considered it a good time to paint our faces blue and go raid the next village - then isn’t there something to be said for Judeo-Christianity? I realize correlation is not causation, but I’m kind of thinking one thing had a little something to do with the other. And I’m sure that most people here value many of our present-day principles, don’t they?
I agree this doesn’t mean, necessarily, that the JC God is more “plausible” - but I think if it were anything else, we’d suspect that there might be some important principle at work - don’t you? That there might be some “truth” underlying? Surely, at least, the JC God laid the foundations for what we have today?
Unless the jungle is preferable?
It’s also very, very pagan. One of the songs is simply a hymn of praise to Athena. (Is she one of the “malicious” or “useless” entities of the mythos? She seems neither to me.)
But let’s turn the question around: If Christianity no longer had an active literature, would it be less credible as a set of propositions? Are Islam and Judaism more credible because of continued Jewish and Islamic literature?
You know, every single time you speak to me on this website, you quote me completely out of context or in some incomplete way. How come? Is this just because we’re on two different wavelengths and you really don’t understand what I’m saying? I admit I have no clue what you’re talking about half the time, so perhaps that’s it.
The “malicious” and “useless” gods I referred to were the ones Tilts mentioned: gods that won’t tell you the truth, or anything about what they know. I really cannot understand why anyone would posit gods like this; what is the point of doing so? I’m talking now about the way real human beings behave, not in the abstract. Why would anybody think up gods that have literally no purpose and nothing to say? And why is this “more plausible” than the JC God?
And why do you think that because I’m arguing on the other side of your take on Judeo-Christian religion that I must perforce be an enemy of Athena? I adore Athena.
I do find it interesting, I have to say, that people here seem to have complete antipathy to Judeo-Christian myth, but have no problem at all with Greek ones…..
I doubt many people have antipathy towards any myth, but they may find it absurd to believe that the myth is true. The Christian religion has indeed been one of the great civilizing influences in history, even if it has also been used to justify a lot of barbarism. However, as has been pointed out again and again by heathens and materialists like myself, no amount of good done in the name of any religion supports the truth of that religion. Belief in ghosts, special revelation, intelligent design, and the idea that humans, a relatively recent, quite destructive species with a nevertheless quite unique level of intelligence and capacity for toolmaking, occupy some cosmically important role despite our smallness in this vast universe — all of these beliefs — are still pretty absurd and when you really think about it. The problem is, you’re not thinking hard enough about what the universe really is, or our place in it. Try then to talk of the God described in any man-made myth without thinking those myths and that God rather silly.
Now, Chuck: How in the world would you know how hard I’m thinking about “what the universe really is, or our place in it”? That’s pretty presumptuous, really. You don’t know anything at all - literally not the first thing - about me OR my belief system.
Sheesh. The patronizing attitudes on this blog are beyond belief sometimes. Do you guys really think you THAT much smarter than the rest of the world?
(And yes: there is great antipathy here towards Judeo-Christian religion, and a seemingly complete inability to see it objectively or to understand it metaphorically or mythologically.
It’s like the negative of so-called “American Evangelical Protestantism.” Worse, actually, because of the ‘tude.)
bls wrote:
“So if all that’s true - then how did we get from there to here? I mean, if a couple of thousand years ago we’d have considered it a good time to paint our faces blue and go raid the next village - then isn’t there something to be said for Judeo-Christianity? I realize correlation is not causation, but I’m kind of thinking one thing had a little something to do with the other. And I’m sure that most people here value many of our present-day principles, don’t they?
I agree this doesn’t mean, necessarily, that the JC God is more “plausible” - but I think if it were anything else, we’d suspect that there might be some important principle at work - don’t you? That there might be some “truth” underlying? Surely, at least, the JC God laid the foundations for what we have today?”
With all due respect, I think this argument is a non-starter.
1) Any number of things can be correlated with our social & moral development over the past x-thousand years. Scientific advancement, for example. You acknowledge correlation /= causation, but then claim causation anyway, with no evidence other than correlation.
2) The correlation you’re claiming doesn’t even hold, since the behavior and principles of non-Christians have improved over the same period, and there are a lot more of them then there are Christians.
3) Even if you could somehow show that belief in Christianity was a major force in our moral and social development, that still would provide no evidence whatsoever that the Christian God actually exists.
Jason,
Have you read an answer to the problem CS Lewis raised in Miracles that Naturalism can not justify itself.
Ow, this has gotten pretty painful.
I’m gonna go with the tortoise with the universe on his back. Or as the Wiki [my apologies] puts it:
“Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court discussed his “favored version” of the tale in a footnote to his plurality opinion in Rapanos v. United States (decided June 19, 2006):
In our favored version, an Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies “Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down.”
If I’m to be stuck defending an indefensible proposition, I pick infinity over nothingness. I’d rather take a crack at disproving nothingness, since we all seem to be here and all. Good night, my fellow turtles, and cheers.
Actually, the JC God annihilated the entire earth because the people were evil. It says so right straight out.
It’s a pretty good motive, actually, when you think about it.
As Abraham Lincoln once said (paraphrasing), if I befriend my enemy, have I not destroyed him? That the biblical god did not appreciate this, in the story of the Flood, is a serious strike against him.
Have you read an answer to the problem CS Lewis raised in Miracles that Naturalism can not justify itself.
I’m not familiar with that argument of his, but I understand many (all?) of his works are online. I’ll take a look and let you know what I think.
I do find it interesting, I have to say, that people here seem to have complete antipathy to Judeo-Christian myth, but have no problem at all with Greek ones…..
This doesn’t describe me. I have great admiration for much of the Christian and Jewish traditions: the rule of law, the story of Ruth, the Sermon on the Mount, the idea of an absolute moral authority beyond “might makes right” … I could go on.
Likewise with the Greco-Roman tradition, but there are things about it I find vile and awful too, like the story of Persephone, or of Prometheus. All religions are a mixed bag. All of them.
Except for mine. Which is always correct.
I do find it interesting, I have to say, that people here seem to have complete antipathy to Judeo-Christian myth, but have no problem at all with Greek ones…..</i?
Well, that’s certainly not true for me. As I mentioned recently on another thread I once thought seriously about being a Medieval/Renaissance lit professor, and I still pitch Dante and Milton to people like it’s my job. I love myth whether Christian, Greek, or otherwise, and I love the ways that talented people make it their own.
I do not, however, believe that myths are true. Nor would I want them to be. They stop being beautiful and start being terrifying the moment you imagine them as anything other than fiction. I don’t think Greek and Christian myths are being treated differently by the posters here, I think they’re being treated exactly the same. If there were a Zeus worshiper here arguing for the logical plausibility of his god, he’d be getting the same responses you do.