Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[DavidRoss]

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum.  Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.

[Xenophanes]

No, i expect you to share the worldview employed by western intellectuals, from Plato to Schopenhauer, before the worship of mechanics replaced real thought and reduced the human mind into a boring atomata, a mere collection of processes, unable to comprehend anything that any machine wouldn't comprehend.

I find it strange you cannot actually tell me anything about that alleged worldview.

So what is that worldview shared by Western intellectuals from Plato to Schopenhauer? I think that period witnessed a number worldviews.  Besides, a lot has happened since Schopenhauer, and after all, there is quite a variety in philosophy, theology, natural science, social sciences, and the arts since then.

Besides, I am not convinced that worldviews are all of a piece, anyway.  What is stretching to the ether supposed to mean?  Which meaning did you have in mind?

In any case, if you wish to communicate with modern people, you will have to speak in language they can understand.  For example, Christianity had to speak to people in their own languages, not just Hebrew or Aramaic, and the New Testament is in Greek and even quoted the Old Testament from a Greek translation.

[Elgarian]

What is stretching to the ether supposed to mean?  Which meaning did you have in mind?

I offered a possible interpretation of his metaphor in #190:

"The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well."

But I say again (trying not actually to take sides in this discussion, but just observing what's happening) that when two world views conflict (as here), it's unlikely that any progress can be made so long as both parties maintain entrenched positions. In this case, you're requiring that what one might call 'spiritual insights' (choose a better expression if you can think of one) be transposed into a rationalist world view; and however reasonable that may seem from your point of view, it can't be done. You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blue, you have to see it (if it exists).

[Bulldog]

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

Well, it's a two-way street.  I find that folks at both ends of the spectrum can be rather nasty and disrespectful. 

[Brian]

I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?

[Bulldog]

I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?

The same as the purpose of every other thread about religion (pro or con) - verbal masturbation.

[DavidRoss]

I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?

Like virtually all the other threads having to do with religion, God, faith, spirituality, etc--most of which are started by Eric--the purpose is to ridicule and sneer at people of faith, Christians particularly.

[Wilhelm Richard]

I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?

Slapped and slapped and slapped again.
The thread began as a question between polytheism and whateverism and became a general debate on the nature of religion...Unfortunately, comments such as...

I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. 

...are tolerated when...

An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum.  Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.

...actually seems to be the case.

I cite a moderator's previous post that states that "views offensive to the majority of the board that are frequently aired are regarded as spam and against the interests of this board and the majority of its members." 

The "discussion" (as it is currently being continued) should be ended as many potentially less harmless discussion topics have been.  For some, religion can be the most important aspect of their life, more important than their views on, say, race or the State of Israel (for example).

[Homo Aestheticus]

Brian,

The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.

[Xenophanes]

I offered a possible interpretation of his metaphor in #190:

"The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well."

But I say again (trying not actually to take sides in this discussion, but just observing what's happening) that when two world views conflict (as here), it's unlikely that any progress can be made so long as both parties maintain entrenched positions. In this case, you're requiring that what one might call 'spiritual insights' (choose a better expression if you can think of one) be transposed into a rationalist world view; and however reasonable that may seem from your point of view, it can't be done. You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blueness, you have to see it (if it exists).

I do not think that spiritual insights are confined to just one world view.

What makes you think I am a rationalist?

[karlhenning]

Brian,

The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism . . .

A bizarre purpose, but entirely characteristic.

. . . and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.

You are at your very funniest when you are being smug, and in accusing others of the selfsame vice!

[Bulldog]

Brian,

The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.

But you have only shown that you're adrift and unsettled.

[Gurn Blanston]

Brian,

The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.

I think there is a certain amount of smugness in the very title of this thread. Where do you get the "us" from? No system of beliefs is right for "us", although any number of them may be right for "you" (singular).

That statement has griped my cookies since you first started this thread, and now I have got it off my chest. Thanks for the impromptu therapy session, Eric.

[karlhenning]

We are amused.

[Xenophanes]

Xenophanes,

Thanks for the link and the the replies... But I'd like to know what you make of Richard Dawkins when he says that theology shouldn't even be considered a real subject ?

What does he know about it?  

Here is Dawkins' interview (7 parts) with an eminent astronomer, Father George Coyne, the former head of the Vatican Observatory, who among other things, is a critic of intelligent design.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=965C53D2B4BCCCF5

Richard Dawkins isn't in a position to take Father Coyne on either scientifically (astronomy is not his field of expertise) or theologically. Or do you think he is just being polite to the old guy?  Anyway, a nice conversation.

[Elgarian]

I do not think that spiritual insights are confined to just one world view.

Neither do I. It doesn't have a bearing on what I was saying.

What makes you think I am a rationalist?

It doesn't matter what the labels are. Choose different ones (as I invited). The key point is still that no progress can be made by demanding that insights dependent upon one world view must be transposable into another. I repeat: "You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blueness, you have to see it (if it exists)." The reality of the colour blue may indeed be a mere fantasy, but the issue can't be resolved by talking about it. The same goes for 'the extension of consciousness into the ether'. As I explained, I can form some kind of understanding of what he may mean by that metaphorical expression; but he, like Blake, would insist that truly to understand it, one needs to experience it.

[greg]

Why pathological ?

Are you really able to accept the 4 attributes of the Judao-Christian God - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence - without any problems ?

that's what I'm wondering...

[karlhenning]

"Without any problems" just isn't the "gotcha" that Eric imagines it to be.

[karlhenning]

Is acceptance of divine omnibenevolence a "problem"?  I shouldn't think so.

And (by the bye) here is a divine attribute, where I fail to see polytheism as at all "superior."  There (I should think) the "selective benevolence" is more obviously a moral problem.

[Fëanor]

Man, this is a great thread.  Of course all discussions about religion are great in that -- after are all the rational arguments have been explored -- irrational belief prevails.  I find this perversely amusing. 

An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum.  Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.

That's the great thing about being a Christian (or other religionist), is when you hear someone who professes the same religion but doesn't agree with you, you can just say the he/she isn't a "real" Christian, (Hindu, Buddist, Jew, whatever).