If Gods are Real, Where are They?

[Swammerdami]

I often disagree with Dr. Z. But sometimes he "hits the nail on the head"!

The ancients (ie Pagan) fully mastered how metaphors and poetry worked. You're describing a way of thinking that only started after the printing press was invented. The ancients were a hell of a lot less certain about how the world worked. They could hold parallel thoughts in their heads. A Greek pagan could believe in the gods and be an atheist at the same time. They could believe that Gaia walked around on two legs while simultaneously being the ground that we walk on.

In many ways they were smarter than us. Christian dominance and intolerance has made the West dumber regarding these things.

Good post. And always trying to reduce all things to Aristotelian logic. Anything not logical is wrong.

I also thought Dr. Z's was a good post.

But why the emphasis on Aristotelian logic? I thought Dr. Z was illustrating logic's limitations, especially on complex or spiritual matters. He repeats that in this post:

Good post. And always trying to reduce all things to Aristotelian logic. Anything not logical is wrong.

Religion isn't science. Religion is many things. But it's about finding comfort in spite of life being unpredictable and often cruel. It's about making peace with our mortality. It's about creating community. It's about creating shared rituals and symbols. To connect the individual to something greater than them.

The myths of the gods can serve all of these even if it's just a bunch of made up stories and us knowing it is. Just like we can be touched to tears by a movie we know is fully fictional.

Wondering whether God really exists or not is missing the point of religion or of the stories or the religious texts IMHO. Have you never wondered why the description of the Christian God is left so vague? I don't think it's a bug. I think it's a feature.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ultimately religion is entirely ritual and behavior. I don't think it's accurate to say that logic is limited in understanding these behaviors. It's more the case that the application of logic and reason to understand these behaviors illustrates how illogical, disorderly and inconsistent these behaviors can be.

And religion isn't only about finding comfort in a cruel world. It's also a source of cruelty and a purveyor of ignorance and harm. It victimizes and divides people just as capably as it brings comfort. It rejects and accepts with equal capacity. So lets not get too rosy in our assessment of religion's influence.

The ancients, just like we today, were trying to understand natural phenomena. Their gods were the best inventive explanations possible given the limitations of their knowledge. The explanations made logical sense but the entities behind those explanations were illogical to a fault. Mythical soap operas had to be invented to make any sense of the mishmash of interpretations of what constituted these entities, and these stories and interpretations were always changing, same as today. Now our gods don't live on mountains and in the sky, they're invisible and live beyond our comprehension! Give it a break already.

Maybe in the end all we can say about these gods is that the gods are illogical and unpredictable because it is in the nature of gods to be illogical and unpredictable. How convenient.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Might be worth making a split between spirituality which is somewhat trying to find comfort, meaning, and belonging in a world that at times doesn't seem to give a butt about anything and religion, which is the formalized and bureaucratic organization of differing groups that have homogenized their version of spirituality, which strips most actual portions of spirituality and replace it with dogma.

Spirituality is much closer and personal while religion is cold and often repressive (despite claims otherwise).

Spirituality can help one feel not as alone while religion tells people that their god will protect them as they go to attack some other tribe.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Aristotelian logic? If one has read Aristotle carefully, much of his thought is actually bad theology. There are 47, or 55 celestial spheres, each with it's own unmoved mover. The prime Unmoved Mover lives in the outer edges of the final sphere, made of an ultra-fine material aether. This UPM set the Universe in motion, and withdrew, only contemplating it's own thought. It is simple, not made of parts. A's physics, books 7 - 8 go into great detail as to why Aristotle thought his Unmoved Prime Mover was simple, all malarkey. He knew no physics, no cosmology, and was pulling a lot of nonsense out of his arse. All of his thinking is permeated by bad theological based garbage.

Aristotle was ignorant. he had no microscope, no telescopes, no real physics, no chemistry, no biochemistry and so he did a lot of guessing and raiding earlier Greek thinkers like a pack rat looking for bad ideas to add to his pile of bad ideas. Among the Catholic theologian set, he is still one Big Idol.

Aristotle - De Anima - On The Soul

And this reason is separate and unaffected and unmixed, being
in its essence actuality. For what acts is always superior to what is
affected, as too the first principle is to the matter.
[Knowledge in actuality is the same as the thing, though in an
individual knowledge in potentiality is prior in time, though
generally it is not prior in time.]
But it is not the case that sometimes it reasons and sometimes it
does not. And having been separated, this alone is just what it is,
and this alone is deathless and everlasting, though we do not
remember, because this is unaffected, whereas passive reason is
perishable. And without this, nothing reasons.

Yeah baby. Tell us all about souls, substance and forms! Catholic Aristotle groupies among the theologian set eat this stuff up. It is the foundation of the Aristotle - Thomist theology.

Don't get me started on Aristotle!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Aristotelian logic? If one has read Aristotle carefully, much of his thought is actually bad theology. There are 47, or 55 celestial spheres, each with it's own unmoved mover. The prime Unmoved Mover lives in the outer edges of the final sphere, made of an ultra-fine material aether. This UPM set the Universe in motion, and withdrew, only contemplating it's own thought. It is simple, not made of parts. A's physics, books 7 - 8 go into great detail as to why Aristotle thought his Unmoved Prime Mover was simple, all malarkey. He knew no physics, no cosmology, and was pulling a lot of nonsense out of his arse. All of his thinking is permeated by bad theological based garbage.

Aristotle was ignorant. he had no microscope, no telescopes, no real physics, no chemistry, no biochemistry and so he did a lot of guessing and raiding earlier Greek thinkers like a pack rat looking for bad ideas to add to his pile of bad ideas. Among the Catholic theologian set, he is still one Big Idol.

Aristotle - De Anima - On The Soul

And this reason is separate and unaffected and unmixed, being
in its essence actuality. For what acts is always superior to what is
affected, as too the first principle is to the matter.
[Knowledge in actuality is the same as the thing, though in an
individual knowledge in potentiality is prior in time, though
generally it is not prior in time.]
But it is not the case that sometimes it reasons and sometimes it
does not. And having been separated, this alone is just what it is,
and this alone is deathless and everlasting, though we do not
remember, because this is unaffected, whereas passive reason is
perishable. And without this, nothing reasons.

Yeah baby. Tell us all about souls, substance and forms! Catholic Aristotle groupies among the theologian set eat this stuff up. It is the foundation of the Aristotle - Thomist theology.

Don't get me started on Aristotle!

But his logic works! To be a great philosopher you only ever need to be first and correct about a single thing in their entire life.

What a surprise that a thinker who pushes human knowledge further than it had ever gone before did a lot of whacky thinking outside the box

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

On the other hand, Aristotle's wanky nonsense lead humanity astray for 1600 years or so. Many Catholic theologians such as Ed Feser still tell us with a straight face Aristotle invented science. And are still peddling many of his bad ideas.

Some of the true giants of ancient Greece were the naturalists who dared stop doing basic philosophy based on bad mythology and theology.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think Aristotle's "wrongness" is exaggerated. Yes, he had some wrong ideas, but he also had some important ideas that have turned out to be correct, in fields like biology and acoustics.

But the reference upthread was to Aristotelian logic. That's a field which Aristotle got "right" and in agreement with formal logic today. BUT my reference, and the point that I thought — incorrectly? — that Dr. Z was making, is that the crisp all-or-nothing nature of logic "truth" (and in particular Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle) runs counter to the "fuzzier" and more holistic (spiritual?) thinking of Eastern and ancient religions.

 

[Politesse]

You don't get it; if someone does a religion, even a little bit, that whole person is ruined and they are wrong about everything. You know, because they might become rigid and dogmatic in their thinking. It's like doing a marijuana. Just one and you're done for.

 

[steve_bank]

No historical figures were always right. Einstein as I recall rejected aspects of QM and got sidelined.

There is hindsight and there is being in the moment looking to an unknown future and unknown ideas.

Newton was a Christian. I believe he sometimes attributed things unknown to god. As we know today Newtonian mechanics comes up short and applies within bounds, not too small and not too fast.

We trace the beginnings of organized categorical analysis of physical reality to Aristotle.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, unless the religious take it to an extreme.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You don't get it; if someone does a religion, even a little bit, that whole person is ruined and they are wrong about everything. You know, because they might become rigid and dogmatic in their thinking. It's like doing a marijuana. Just one and you're done for.

That is what is said of crack, not pot.

Check the effect stats.

You give religions too much credit and power. Many get out or more like never get dragged in and numbers are rising as modernization kills religions.

Regards
DL

 

[DrZoidberg]

On the other hand, Aristotle's wanky nonsense lead humanity astray for 1600 years or so. Many Catholic theologians such as Ed Feser still tell us with a straight face Aristotle invented science. And are still peddling many of his bad ideas.

Some of the true giants of ancient Greece were the naturalists who dared stop doing basic philosophy based on bad mythology and theology.

He didn't invent being wrong. People were wrong about stuff before Aristotele. Not understanding his greatness and understanding just how much he helped speed up the scientific method (in hindsight irrespective of his own weirder ideas) is on par with being an anti-vaxxer imho

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

On the other hand, Aristotle's wanky nonsense lead humanity astray for 1600 years or so. Many Catholic theologians such as Ed Feser still tell us with a straight face Aristotle invented science. And are still peddling many of his bad ideas.

Some of the true giants of ancient Greece were the naturalists who dared stop doing basic philosophy based on bad mythology and theology.

He didn't invent being wrong. People were wrong about stuff before Aristotele. Not understanding his greatness and understanding just how much he helped speed up the scientific method (in hindsight irrespective of his own weirder ideas) is on par with being an anti-vaxxer imho

If Aristotle had the tools he would have turned out like Kepler. Both were mystics of the first order but scientific thinkers also.

 

[DrZoidberg]

On the other hand, Aristotle's wanky nonsense lead humanity astray for 1600 years or so. Many Catholic theologians such as Ed Feser still tell us with a straight face Aristotle invented science. And are still peddling many of his bad ideas.

Some of the true giants of ancient Greece were the naturalists who dared stop doing basic philosophy based on bad mythology and theology.

He didn't invent being wrong. People were wrong about stuff before Aristotele. Not understanding his greatness and understanding just how much he helped speed up the scientific method (in hindsight irrespective of his own weirder ideas) is on par with being an anti-vaxxer imho

If Aristotle had the tools he would have turned out like Kepler. Both were mystics of the first order but scientific thinkers also.

Secularists often fail to appreciate the Catholic church's university system and monastic orders. While we may disparage the many excesses of the Catholic church compared to anything else humanity has ever done they were less excessive and less wasteful. They build an infrastructure around spiritual and intellectual pursuits. It wasn't intended for free thought. Quite the opposite. It was built up around controlling thought. But they were wise enough to realize that they needed to teach heresy to the defenders of Christianity if they were able to combat heresy. This created a space, within the monastic orders, where free thought was possible. And it was well funded. The Catholic church deserves a lot of the credit for the European Enlightenment IMHO.

Kepler is a result of the monastic system of research and science. He's a direct beneficiary, building upon a body of work Aristotle, arguably, started. It was a step-by-step journey ongoing with modern science.

 

[steve_bank]

Oppenheimer was into eastern mysticism.

Hawking at times got a bit far out.

And of course Carl Sagan. His drippy 'billions and billions of starts' comment. At the end of his life he admitted using pot for inspiration.

Jobs was certainly eccentric.

AE had his idiosyncrasies. They all did. Heisenberg was a willing Nazi.

Our culture today is obsessed with holding public figures to an impossible image of correctness and infallibility.

Aristotle was emmersed in a peer culture as was Maxwell and AE.

 

[steve_bank]

If Aristotle had the tools he would have turned out like Kepler. Both were mystics of the first order but scientific thinkers also.

Secularists often fail to appreciate the Catholic church's university system and monastic orders. While we may disparage the many excesses of the Catholic church compared to anything else humanity has ever done they were less excessive and less wasteful. They build an infrastructure around spiritual and intellectual pursuits. It wasn't intended for free thought. Quite the opposite. It was built up around controlling thought. But they were wise enough to realize that they needed to teach heresy to the defenders of Christianity if they were able to combat heresy. This created a space, within the monastic orders, where free thought was possible. And it was well funded. The Catholic church deserves a lot of the credit for the European Enlightenment IMHO.

Kepler is a result of the monastic system of research and science. He's a direct beneficiary, building upon a body of work Aristotle, arguably, started. It was a step-by-step journey ongoing with modern science.

I went to RCC schools in the 50s/60s. In hindsight it was a very good primary education. My best math teacher was a nun, ny best science teacher(chemistry) was a Mexican priest.

The RCC has been a mix of pragmatism and maintaining the faith and catechism, the theology of the church.
I read a balanced history of Christianity written by a Catholic priest. There are positives and negatives.

For a long time it provided a structure in timesof rampant illiteracy and chaos.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If Aristotle had the tools he would have turned out like Kepler. Both were mystics of the first order but scientific thinkers also.

Secularists often fail to appreciate the Catholic church's university system and monastic orders. While we may disparage the many excesses of the Catholic church compared to anything else humanity has ever done they were less excessive and less wasteful. They build an infrastructure around spiritual and intellectual pursuits. It wasn't intended for free thought. Quite the opposite. It was built up around controlling thought. But they were wise enough to realize that they needed to teach heresy to the defenders of Christianity if they were able to combat heresy. This created a space, within the monastic orders, where free thought was possible. And it was well funded. The Catholic church deserves a lot of the credit for the European Enlightenment IMHO.

Kepler is a result of the monastic system of research and science. He's a direct beneficiary, building upon a body of work Aristotle, arguably, started. It was a step-by-step journey ongoing with modern science.

For centuries the RCC was like ISIS. No good it brought to this world was ever intentional. That much is a fact. Perhaps it advanced scientific thinking but that too was never its primary goal. It wanted power and control and to run the world as a gulag.

Kepler wanted to embrace its mysticism but was too good a scientist in the end to let those mystical inclinations displace his observations.

 

[Bomb#20]

For centuries the RCC was like ISIS. No good it brought to this world was ever intentional. That much is a fact.

Strawberries. Centuries of selective breeding by monks in medieval monasteries.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If Aristotle had the tools he would have turned out like Kepler. Both were mystics of the first order but scientific thinkers also.

Secularists often fail to appreciate the Catholic church's university system and monastic orders. While we may disparage the many excesses of the Catholic church compared to anything else humanity has ever done they were less excessive and less wasteful. They build an infrastructure around spiritual and intellectual pursuits. It wasn't intended for free thought. Quite the opposite. It was built up around controlling thought. But they were wise enough to realize that they needed to teach heresy to the defenders of Christianity if they were able to combat heresy. This created a space, within the monastic orders, where free thought was possible. And it was well funded. The Catholic church deserves a lot of the credit for the European Enlightenment IMHO.

Kepler is a result of the monastic system of research and science. He's a direct beneficiary, building upon a body of work Aristotle, arguably, started. It was a step-by-step journey ongoing with modern science.

I went to RCC schools in the 50s/60s. In hindsight it was a very good primary education. My best math teacher was a nun, ny best science teacher(chemistry) was a Mexican priest.

The RCC has been a mix of pragmatism and maintaining the faith and catechism, the theology of the church.
I read a balanced history of Christianity written by a Catholic priest. There are positives and negatives.

For a long time it provided a structure in timesof rampant illiteracy and chaos.

One of the best lecture series on theology I ever heard was the curriculum taught in Jesuit priest seminary. It was taught by a Jesuit monk. He just straight up went right through all the paradoxes and Biblical self contradictions and put a spotlight on all the flaws. It might as well have been a course taught by Matt Dillahunty.

When I'd listened to the end of that my respect for Catholicism went up and I stopped being a militant atheist thinking all religion was evil. Knowing that every Catholic priest is taught all the reasons why the supernatural stuff in Christianity is bullshit makes me respect them more.

The Catholic church is nothing if not pragmatic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If Aristotle had the tools he would have turned out like Kepler. Both were mystics of the first order but scientific thinkers also.

Secularists often fail to appreciate the Catholic church's university system and monastic orders. While we may disparage the many excesses of the Catholic church compared to anything else humanity has ever done they were less excessive and less wasteful. They build an infrastructure around spiritual and intellectual pursuits. It wasn't intended for free thought. Quite the opposite. It was built up around controlling thought. But they were wise enough to realize that they needed to teach heresy to the defenders of Christianity if they were able to combat heresy. This created a space, within the monastic orders, where free thought was possible. And it was well funded. The Catholic church deserves a lot of the credit for the European Enlightenment IMHO.

Kepler is a result of the monastic system of research and science. He's a direct beneficiary, building upon a body of work Aristotle, arguably, started. It was a step-by-step journey ongoing with modern science.

For centuries the RCC was like ISIS. No good it brought to this world was ever intentional. That much is a fact. Perhaps it advanced scientific thinking but that too was never its primary goal. It wanted power and control and to run the world as a gulag.

Kepler wanted to embrace its mysticism but was too good a scientist in the end to let those mystical inclinations displace his observations.

You just rephrased what I said.

Sometimes bad people's actions have unintended consequences that are a boon to mankind.

A bit like Adolph Hitler was instrumental in creating Israel. Modern scientists need to be "grateful" to the Catholic church in the same way IMHO. No matter how happy Jews are about Israel, I'm sure they'd all rather have skipped the Holocaust.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For centuries the RCC was like ISIS. No good it brought to this world was ever intentional. That much is a fact. Perhaps it advanced scientific thinking but that too was never its primary goal. It wanted power and control and to run the world as a gulag.

Kepler wanted to embrace its mysticism but was too good a scientist in the end to let those mystical inclinations displace his observations.

You just rephrased what I said.

Sometimes bad people's actions have unintended consequences that are a boon to mankind.

A bit like Adolph Hitler was instrumental in creating Israel. Modern scientists need to be "grateful" to the Catholic church in the same way IMHO. No matter how happy Jews are about Israel, I'm sure they'd all rather have skipped the Holocaust.

You are certainly a person of your creed and in that response illustrated and reinforced humanity's core problematic behavior, namely that there can be no progress without calamity. I've never understood this need to rationalize and defend our most abject failures. It must be so emotionally gratifying for some that they simply cannot escape embracing the lack of self control and the inability to envision actions more productive, to recognize one's most horrendous mistakes.