Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Guido]

Still like to know how you get a rose from a rock. The "first" cell?

A huge amount of literature on this, and it's not strictly part of evolutionary theory, but Al (on this foum) has written a very nice introduction to the subject which I can't currently locate (he's a christian, don't worry!).

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Had we lived in a polytheistic civilization, the OP would have surely asked: "Would monotheism be better for us?" 

Not at all.... Again, monotheism does a horrible job of explaining the staggering differences among humans.

When this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question:

Would Arianism be better for us?

Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ?  I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...

And one more thing: Plato believed in the gods.  If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Guido,

Even if we accept that there might be a supernatural creator, I think the evidence that that being has interacted with humans is extremely poor indeed (or any other supernatural phenomena happening in the physical world for that matter - psychics, lycanthropy, resurrections etc. etc.), and all arguments that I have seen trying to link an impersonal creative force with some benevolent moral promulgator have been exceedingly weak, sometimes laughably so.

I agree but what do you make of the following:

a. Unless there is a benevolent supernatural being, there probably cannot be objectively binding moral obligations.

b. Objectively binding moral obligations exist.

c. Therefore there probably is a benevolent supernatural being.

[Homo Aestheticus]

For him and his fellow rocket scientists who never tire of beating this dead horse with their willfully ignorant prejudices.

What are you talking about ?

I happen to find the arguments for the existence of the Judao-Christian God and the truth of their texts invalid... How does that make me willfully ignorant ?

[Wilhelm Richard]

Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ?  I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...

Arianism ≠ Aryanism

[Florestan]

Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ?  I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...

One more proof --- if needed --- that your knowledge about Christianity and its historical development is very weak. Arianism has nothing to do with race or ethnicity and, as WR pointed out, should not be confused with Aryanism

And one more thing: Plato believed in the gods.  If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.

Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky believed in God. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Have you ever read Plato? I mean, not newspaper commentaries about Plato, but his own work.

[Renfield]

Plato seemed to believe in the divine, loosely construed, and away enough from the prevalent dogma of the time as to have based one of his most elegant arguments on 'the good' around the possibility that it (the good) predates the gods, partly implying that the common-belief gods would then be unnecessary. His own view would seem to have been closer to pantheism, from where I see it.

(This in a nutshell since he was brought up, and according to my reading of him ('reading' as in 'interpretation') - needless to say, I am not a leading classical scholar! But I am somewhat allergic to good philosophy being mangled; even potentially, and/or by accident.)

[Josquin des Prez]

Religion for the Greeks was something different from what we imagine. In it's highest manifestation, the religious feeling of the Greek reached to Homer. The Greeks were an artistic race (unlike the Romans, who never understood the Greeks, no matter how much they borrowed from them), and for them religion was yet another form of artistic expression. Try some of the great dramatists, like Sophocles for instance. It is in those works that the religious spirit of the Greek shines the brightest, and it is a great and noble spirit.

[Franco]

What are you talking about ?

I happen to find the arguments for the existence of the Judao-Christian God and the truth of their texts invalid... How does that make me willfully ignorant ?

Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man.  The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person.  However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.

Your choice.

[Bulldog]

Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man.  The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person.  However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.

Your choice.

I'm chuckling at the above, because that's exactly how my wife sees the matter. 

[ChamberNut]

Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man.  The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person.  However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.

Your choice.

So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"?  Believe in religion, only because of fear?

[Lethevich]

So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"?  Believe in religion, only because of fear?

One billion catholics can't be wrong

[DavidRoss]

So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"?  Believe in religion, only because of fear?

See Pascal's Wager.  It's about belief in God, which has nothing to do with religion.

[ChamberNut]

One billion catholics can't be wrong

Right.  Just misled.

From a former Roman Catholic.

[karlhenning]

One billion catholics can't be wrong

Oh, dear . . . .

[karlhenning]

Just a note, friends Sara & Ray:  that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).

Somewhere in his dank darkness, the whingemeister is smiling now.

[Bulldog]

Just a note, friends Sara & Ray:  that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).

Somewhere in his dank darkness, the whingemeister is smiling now.

I won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is.  More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused.

[DavidRoss]

Just a note, friends Sara & Ray:  that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).

But Eric's not all negative, Karl.  Don't forget the other topics of his perennial obsessions:  praise for Wagner, Debussy's P&M, and the aroma of women's panties.

[karlhenning]

I won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is.  More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused.

. . . and starting threads is just his way of saying Hello!

[Frumaster]

How is it that a fully grown and rational human being can take the doctrines and rituals of organized religion so seriously ? 

Without something irrational, there is no leap of faith, and there is subsequently no religion.  If you could explain it, you wouldn't be able to believe in it.  As for rituals, maybe it just makes people feel good?  Religion is an inward, personal thing....rituals don't pose any benefits here, but maybe there's a coolness factor you're missing.

Don't they understand that their religious books were written by flawed humans over many centuries ? Why can't they simply put their faith in reason and weigh all options ? 

Yes.  To put faith in reason would eliminate all religious options.  Believing in something you can't reason away is the whole point of religion.  How could you be passionate about 2+2=4?

Why do they find the Judao-Christian God so compelling  ?

Its a pretty damn good story for one, and the Old Testament consists of some remarkable writings if studied from any perspective.