But why do you call it "conceit" - as if there would be something bad or unreal about maintaining some "highest existenital criterion"?
Do We Need God to Survive?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
But why do you call it "conceit" - as if there would be something bad or unreal about maintaining some "highest existenital criterion"?
God is something that probably arose to meet the needs of states. Since allegiance to a state isn't a matter of kinship or tribalism, the state attained an aura of sacredness, using religion to unify disparate peoples. This wasn't necessarily a cynical ploy, but something that evolved to meet certain needs.
Atheism also arose to meet certain needs- the need to gain a clear picture of reality in order to meet that reality through scientific or technological means. Only recently has this need superseded the need to unite a state by religion.
Atheism also arose to meet certain needs- the need to gain a clear picture of reality in order to meet that reality through scientific or technological means. Only recently has this need superseded the need to unite a state by religion.
No.
I used the word in its correct, not vulgar sense.
conceit
Briefly, meaning that it's an acknowledged, intentional, but useful illusion.
I think there a problems with a clear picture of reality if one has ambitions of a state being united by technology.
Even if we are to accept the wild claim that technology shares a parallel with atheism, it simply unifies the demands of the consumers. IOW even if everyone has to run out and buy a computer, its not like the internet blossoms with a united community.
Actually there's probably a good argument for technology disuniting a community. If you have social conventions that ride off the back of the latest technological advancements, the gap between generations widens at the pace the latest advancements develop.
How bizzarre.
I've actually been running such a line of thought through my head over the past few years. It appears to me that, if anything, contemporary 'advancements' in communication have created an isolationist sensibility....
Interesting room here for an entirely different topic LG....
I would have thought most atheists would have trouble with this formulation. Since it is a lack of belief, that it was more like theism stopped arising or seeming necessary (logical, certain, etc.)
How do you know it's an "illusion"?
What do you consider "real" (as opposed to "illusion")?
Internet communication can be tricky: it is based on a split of body and mind - the body is in one geographical location, but the mind at another, and to boot, this split is quite expensive (one has to have a working computer, internet connection etc.).
But we cannot be infinitely satisfied with enduring such a split. I think the ideal would be to have both the body and the mind in the same geographical location.
Consider: IRL, the people who participate in the discussions here would most likely have no avenue to actually meet and discuss things in one geographical location. And even if we did, the reality of our everyday lives would heavily influence the topics and the way we engage in them.
Compensating for it with online forums gives the exchanges a sense of fakeness, as if it was something unreal or stolen, something we cannot actually afford. As if these discussions are a mere philosophical leisure, with no real value or relevance. Which, I am sure, is reflected in the way we go about discussing and the topics we discuss. Intellectual masturbations.
Well, that's an entirely different can o' worms...
However, for our purposes here, I would distinguish what is not illusory [notice I avoid saying "real"] by the fact that we have a measure of control over it. Which is to say, in this case, it is an object of our creation.
I don't think states are united by technology, it's uniting everyone, or at the very least bringing them into direct communication as never before. I meant that the need to understand our world (global warming, for instance), is more important than religious doctrine and it's corresponding errors in outlook (God will provide, so we don't have to care about the environment).
But it can also be characterized as a positive belief in reason and materialism, as with Democritus.
Excellent points all around.
See, you've hit on precisely the notion that is irksome, and yet curious, for me: that sense of 'fakeness'. It's this sense of disconnect that seems to be growing. Reminds me of Baudrillard......
I have more to think on this subject.
Atheists do not have to be materialists nor do they even have to prioritize reason - they can be curmudgeons who 'don't go in for that God stuff and trust their gut feelings and their senses." For example. Marrying atheism to materialism and reason, though especially the former, is justifying theists who say that atheism is a philosophy or set of beliefs. I don't if you have challenged your fellow atheists here on this issue, but I suspect you find find quite a bit of resistence from atheists.
As far as materialism and theists...I pointed out on my The Physical thread that the words matter, material, the physical no longer mean what they once did. They include phenomena that are radically ephemeral and I think some of the split with the religious around these words comes down to different language use. I think, in fact, that a better case can be made for energy being fundamental and that metaphors for everything based on words with matter and physical as their roots are misleading in the extreme. This does not mean that religion is now supported by science, but there is no need for religious people not to be materialists anymore, not that most of them realize this. The word has swallowed up all phenomena and any phenomenon that is discovered in the future will aslo be part of the physical and part of materialism. All a religious person has to do is avoid believing in something ruled out - not compatible - with current science.
Given the context, this thread, there is no reason a theist cannot forge ahead with a focus on materialist endeavors and research and use reason. I mean if atheists can vote _________(fill in your hated party) then even the most rational can flip and be irrational once every four years.
And then religions like Buddhism and Hinduism have had materialist branches for a long time.
As far as Democritus while still partially in favor because he rebelled against teleology his atomism has proved misleading and his mechanistic approach only applicable in some contexts. IOW qm causes problems for his approach.
Last edited:
Can we control laws?
I think they are interchangeable terms. Materialism is the opposite of supernatural-ism.Doreen said:
I count energy as material, I thought that was a given.Doreen said:
In every other area of life, I suppose they can still use reason. We should call that non-overlapping magisteria. Scientists have lived with this dichotomy for some time.Doreen said:
I would never argue that his primitive form of atomic theory was totally correct, but it was astoundingly similar to how things really are. Quantum mechanics don't leave much room for supernatural premises, if that's what you imply.Doreen said:
Who said anything about laws??
Clearly, within our experiencing, there are things we can affect, and things we cannot...
Theism is about Survival, Eternal Survival with God.
Civilization is heading for ecological doom, does not matter how theological or atheistic it is. Humans are doomed to stuff this world up. It's just a question as to how they eventually do it.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Actually, people give theological reasons why they shouldn't care about the environment.
Excellent point.
When one's concerns are directed towards some 'other world' than this one, one has little reason to care what happens to it...