Do We Need God to Survive?

[Adstar]

Actually, people give theological reasons why they shouldn't care about the environment.

Well people can give all the points they like. People often hold onto doctrines that agree with their own perspective.

But the bible can be seen to hold scripture that counters this doctrine.

Revelation 11
The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth.”

Destorying the earth does not seem like a good path to follow.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[spidergoat]

You mean these guys?:

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.​

Anyway, the people destroyed Earth by sinning, not by digging shit up, thereby causing God to take action and destroy everything physically as punishment. There is no environmental message here.

 

[wynn]

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.

But how do you know we in fact created it?

We cannot provide neither time nor space for ourselves to exist in, nor sunlight, nor air, nor food. But we would have the self-sufficiency to, on our own, create a notion of a supreme deity?

 

[wynn]

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).

Understanding global warming (good example!) is irrelevant when people are not convinced WHY they should do something about it, if at all.

The main reason I don't join Greenpeace and other green organizations and the like is precisely because their philosophy as to WHY we should care about the environment is so weak, or they even have none.

If people don't know why they should do something, or if their reasons don't go beyond satisfying their immediate senses, they won't do it, at least not for long or not consistently.

And only a sytem of values as provided by religions has the power to offer meaningful why's.

 

[wynn]

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...

Not necessarily. If getting to the "other world" is considered to be to some extent conditioned by what we do in this world, then caring for this world has its place.


Moreover, what is really damaging is the one-lifetime conception (no serial reincarnation); this conception can be found in some religions as well as in some secular outlooks.

If people believed that living beings are reborn, many times over, in different bodies, then killing and polluting would be considered much less acceptable, and thus much less engaged in.

 

[wynn]

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.

I realize it was harsh of me to call these forum discussions "intellectual masturbations".
The fact that we post here and discuss things does testify that there is some real need that has to be met.

And to get back on topic: Both atheism, but much more so theism, have served a purpose in facilitating opportunities for meaningful discussion (at least their respective members find it meaningful). Engaging people's intellects towards goals that the community finds worthy is definitely important for survival (even if we allow a very broad range of meanings for it).

Whereas internet forums like this do provide such opportunities, the discussions are quite scattered and aimless; often, we have to discuss the basic terms of discussion and debate from scratch. This way the discussions are slow and don't seem to get anywhere.
Another aspect of slowness - and thus inefficiency - is that this is communication that is delayed in time; it takes us quite long to discuss something. Sometimes, I feel like a drooling idiot ... So much for quick wit.

Having things in the written form also makes us lazy as we are less likely to seriously engage our minds in remembering what was said and working with the remembered.

Sure, in the written form, we may venture into elaborate arguments that would be hard to carry out in plain spoken form, and this may fill us with a sense of pride and accomplishment. But the actual Rhodos is our everyday life: and it is there that we need to know how to jump.

One thing that religions provide, at least ideally, is a stimulating environment where one has to show what one's intellect is worth right there on the spot, in plain spoken form. People have to demonstarte they have remembered scriptures precisely, they have to carry out arguments without the help of pen and paper, and without having a number of references conveniently at hand.
We who don't belong to any religion are lazy bums in comparison to them, wannabes, we're like the nouveau riche - we can show off, but we don't really fit in.
Well, at least some of fit this description precisely.

 

[spidergoat]

Understanding global warming (good example!) is irrelevant when people are not convinced WHY they should do something about it, if at all.

The main reason I don't join Greenpeace and other green organizations and the like is precisely because their philosophy as to WHY we should care about the environment is so weak, or they even have none.

If people don't know why they should do something, or if their reasons don't go beyond satisfying their immediate senses, they won't do it, at least not for long or not consistently.

And only a sytem of values as provided by religions has the power to offer meaningful why's.

The why is pretty obvious, it is implicit in the what. The environment nurtures and sustains us, without healthy ecosystems, species go extinct, including possibly human beings. A study of species and even civilizations before us reveals that collapse is common.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

Big difference between uniting and communication. Mostly it has to do with an analysis of the quality of communication ... .which I'm afraid you won't find a good argument with as far as current technology norms go.

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).

Alternatively one can view global warming as yet another example of humanity getting their greasy fingers all over god's property (again). Inasmuch as it is understood that the material world is created solely for the purpose of teaching the living entity to curb and redirect the energy that drives out of control lust, greed, etc, theism can bring a lot to the table to solve problems of global warming. Certainly more than the idea that its ok to continue with an industrial society built on the foundation of consuming extravagant quantities of energy for the sake of driving consumerism (especially since we have a few technological breakthroughs around the corner ... or maybe just more nuclear reactors).

 

[glaucon]

But how do you know we in fact created it?

We don't know

However, given the fact of a complete lack of evidence, coupled with the fact that the notion is manifest in various ways throughout history and culture, it would seem to be an artifice.

We cannot provide neither time nor space for ourselves to exist in, nor sunlight, nor air, nor food. But we would have the self-sufficiency to, on our own, create a notion of a supreme deity?

Sure. Just like we created even more powerful, indeed useful notions, say, number, for example...

 

[glaucon]

I realize it was harsh of me to call these forum discussions "intellectual masturbations".

I didn't think it was [necessarily]too harsh. All too often in discussions of concepts of personal significance, these kinds of dialogue serve little purpose beyond that of self-assurance...

The fact that we post here and discuss things does testify that there is some real need that has to be met.

I agree. Insightful.

And to get back on topic: Both atheism, but much more so theism, have served a purpose in facilitating opportunities for meaningful discussion (at least their respective members find it meaningful). Engaging people's intellects towards goals that the community finds worthy is definitely important for survival (even if we allow a very broad range of meanings for it).

Again, I agree completely.
In the lack of dialogue, surely things would be much worse...

Whereas internet forums like this do provide such opportunities, the discussions are quite scattered and aimless; often, we have to discuss the basic terms of discussion and debate from scratch. This way the discussions are slow and don't seem to get anywhere.
Another aspect of slowness - and thus inefficiency - is that this is communication that is delayed in time; it takes us quite long to discuss something. Sometimes, I feel like a drooling idiot ... So much for quick wit.

True. I think we all experience this, at one time or another.
Yet, as you've noted, with patience, I think that sometimes, the effort can be worthwhile.

 

[Forceman]

The Source (Ultimate Reality of Human Beings)

Except that the way they truly are is that there is no way how they truly are?
Why not reflect the statement back on itself!

But like you say - I don't believe that there is any "how things truly are" - at this point, it comes down to belief.
And beliefs are changeable.




Not at all.

You seem to come from the position that humans and human thinking (along with human perceiving, experiencing, valuing, ...) are something completely detached from the Universe - that the laws that govern the Universe do not work in human thinking etc. about the Universe.


I refer to this thread: The world - True or false; esp. our exchanges in posts 89 and 90, and 100.

If you believe in The Source, you would know damn well that all humans have to have a hint towards SOMETHING GREATER, a Supreme Being who instills into all of creation celestial energy. What does that mean?: It basically means the subconscious will of one's higher self to live is supported by a life force (prana, chi, orgone, etc-whatever you want to call it). According to occult chemistry, alchemy, and metaphysical teachings, all microscopic particles (atoms more specifically) are enlightened, or rather energized with a greater power, which ultimately comes from the Source. Hinduism teaches that it is this life force that gives all of creation liveliness and even inanimate objects a flavor of existence besides being bound to just one single point of dullness. It also teaches that as prana flows down to objects of concreteness (inorganic and inanimate), they are enlightened with liveliness, which is how familiar spirits can give animation to dolls, i.e. The denial of a God doesn't nullify the truth, and that is the truth that we as humans are all connected to The Source, in the beginning our spirits (or causal bodies) all emanated from The Source, and in the "end", we shall all return to The Source, - of course the wicked, their souls will burn in a chasm of fire.

Whether you've had an OBE or AP or not could greatly change your way of thinking about the existence of The All-Knowing. Scientific thinking has actually created it's own belief system, called humanism, which, combined with secularism, is an enemy to religion, to theism- to a belief in God (or in gods for that matter). Science tries to recount the experiences of say, someone who's experienced a NDE and explain it with scientific reasoning stressing that someone's OBE or NDE can be recreated with scientific instruments. Does that disprove the existence of an Astral Plane, of a Mental Plane, or of Heaven; no it sure doesn't! In fact, science and religion, I think, are becoming more compatible. Take magic vs. religion for example. Magic can recreate something a brain surgeon can do to relieve a person of a tumor through evocations and energy channeling. Has this been fully explained and expounded on by scientists (or even psychologists)? to this day, no, but the existence of higher realms does NOT contradict science. In fact quantum physics and astrophysics stresses the belief in parallel universes and multiple dimension in which perspective (the human perspective) would probably render images of great abstractions, smelling colors and seeing sounds and interacting with stellar beings. The marriage of magic and science happens in a way with alchemy, but, of course, that practice has been nullified. Religion and science have yet to marry, but I compel to read some Kabbalistic teachings, which explain what happens in the spiritual planes when, say for instance, the sun rises and how it still carries out fusion. YES, science can explain the self-retainment of the sun, but spiritualism (sorry to mention it for skeptics) is higher than science, and when science meets religion, they are enemies because of a balance that must be maintained as long as humans are as limited in knowledge that they are. -The brain is complex, but we humans have yet to reach our full potential- call it evolution or what. Our gross perception can not perceive with accuracy what goes on in the higher spheres, but this type of knowledge was common talk to Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. It's actually still accepted in the UK and Far East. It's just we dull (excluding me and the Church), secularistic and humanistic Americans who deny any other explanation besides scientific reasoning and logic. Science has yet to catch up with metaphysics... That's a truth.:shrug:

 

[Adstar]

You mean these guys?:

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.​

Anyway, the people destroyed Earth by sinning, not by digging shit up, thereby causing God to take action and destroy everything physically as punishment. There is no environmental message here.

No those guys are the last two witnesses that will be on the earth just before the coming of the Messiah Jesus. And all the actions your quote mentions are not actions that would destroy the earth.

If you do not believe that human civilization is destroying the earth your probably in denial.

The growth of knowledge only makes our blows against the earth more and more damaging.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days