Christianity vs Earth, the right vs the left (the Nietzsche reading club)

[Henk]

Those are two of the worst possible people to quote on this topic.

✌️

You search for evidence, but first you need a hypothesis. It's a cyclus, both narrative (or else theory) as evidence are involved.

To me this only fills it with more spirit.

I'm currently interested in the irrationalities and quircks of the human mind. It's science, it's Enlightenment too.

Religions are tradition, Enlightenment is everything.

[Henk]

We need however seperate the two realms, we need to focus on what we reasonably can know, Nietzsche calls it 'the knowledge-Earth'. We can understand religion, but we must avoid certain religious questions to become the questions and problems of our research which deal with the first and the last things, such wicked problems that shouldn't be of our interest, as if belief has more value than knowledge. Otherwise we would numb ourselves with belief, we would not change anymore. Nietzsche writes we must become good neighbours again with our near environments.

[Henk]

'There are no facts, there's only interpretation.' (Nietzsche)

'End facts, try fiction.' (Ezra Pound)

Han also writes that facts only provides now-points, it's non-time, it's accumulative and fragmentive.

Observing a fact implicates already an interpretation or interpretations.

[Henk]

I just have a preference for narrative. @Todd showed me the other side (of the story). Thanks, Todd, it was a good conversation. I'm quite into Enlightenment these days, while I also contemplate religion. I have a book about Spinoza, titled 'Spinoza's Religion' which is about resting in God or something. I guess practicing that only alters the vibe of resting, not really it's value. But maybe Han too can convince me, his book 'Speaking about God' is about Weil and about God, about stillness, attention, listening.

Maybe there's something to say for godliness instead of godlessness.

I'm into polytheïsm. Those stories excite me more than ordinary fiction. That vibe of godliness arouses me more than a unanimous God of monotheïsm.

[Henk]

Narratives are often merely retrospective intellectual overlays that rationalize historical events and behaviors.

I see only now that what I do is 'world history'. Nietzsche called it 'the hyperbole of hyperboles'. But narrative encompasses much more, even theory. Data-ists like Chris Anderson announced 'the end of theory'. I searched for his book, but strangely it's not on Amazon or Goodreads.

[Henk]

As for how can one verify faith, all you have to do is practice the religion. That would be a correct scientific approach. I mean art is the same. When i first started to listen to classical music, i didn't look for laboratory "evidence" that proved Beethoven was a genius, i had to go listen to his music and verify the claim for myself.

This is interesting. I have read about about quantummechanics that perceives God as a generative force. All the elements were generated for instance by this force. On our planet this generative force manifests as life and it gets more meaning. It's also beyond generation as for instance some birds use quantummechanics to migrate in a straight line. Life is bigger than us. Also this force is hidden from us, though we know it exists.

In such ways I think I can relate to this force as being God. One can also 'rest in God', which is the topic of 'Spinoza's religion'. Also Han's book 'Speaking about God' on Weil's philosophy comes to mind.

So a God that/who provides both arousal (life) and rest and attention, listening and stillness, that speaks to me. It's also about cultivating modesty and humbleness for me. But at the same time I find the narratives of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses intruiging.

Nietzsche:

'=Dangerous Play.=--Whoever gives religious feeling room, must then also let it grow. He can do nothing else. Then his being gradually changes. The religious element brings with it affinities and kinships. The whole circle of his judgment and feeling is clouded and draped in religious shadows. Feeling cannot stand still. One should be on one's guard.' (Human, all too human)

[Todd]

Data-ists like Chris Anderson announced 'the end of theory'.

There is no end to theories; there is a proliferation of them.

[Henk]

There is no end to theories; there is a proliferation of them.

Including conspiracy theories you mean, I guess? But don't you think there is good, well-thought theory that has a relation to reality?

[Todd]

Including conspiracy theories you mean, I guess?

All types of theories from all manner of sources on all sorts of topics.

[Henk]

There's also a growth and proliferation of all sorts of data.

Isn't this evidence of Enlightenment? We only need to prune and give juice to a healthy growth.

[Opus131]

I'm into polytheïsm. Those stories excite me more than ordinary fiction. That vibe of godliness arouses me more than a unanimous God of monotheïsm.

The problem with polytheism for me is that the idea of "multiple" gods doesn't really make sense. The entire point of the one god hypothesis is to posit the existence of a non-contigent reality that is not subject to the problems of finite existence, which by its nature can only be unique (for how do you have multiple non-contigent realities or beings?). In order for God to be God he has to be both absolute and infinite (and thus limitless). To posit another God or multiple Gods would be to set limits to the deity and a finite God contradicts the nature of divinity (which has to be uncreated and not contingent on anything).

Notice that in so called "polytheist" religions this problem is not unknown, and within this polytheist pantheon there's always a supreme deity or principle that reigns supreme over all of them. Whether it's the Absolute or Braham of Hinduism, the "One" of the Neoplatonists, the Tao that "cannot be named", the "Great Spirit" of the American Indians etc.

Thus, polytheism in a sense doesn't really exist. In many cases, those "gods" are either symbolic rapresentations of the powers of the supreme divinity or are subordinate entities not too dissimilar from angels (or even saints which in many cases take up the function of patron deities from pagan religions) in the Abrahamic faiths.

[Henk]

The problem with polytheism for me is that the idea of "multiple" gods doesn't really make sense. The entire point of the one god hypothesis is to posit the existence of a non-contigent reality that is not subject to the problems of finite existence, which by its nature can only be unique (for how do you have multiple non-contigent realities or beings?). In order for God to be God he has to be both absolute and infinite (and thus limitless). To posit another God or multiple Gods would be to set limits to the deity and a finite God contradicts the nature of divinity (which has to be uncreated and not contingent on anything).

Notice that in so called "polytheist" religions this problem is not unknown, and within this polytheist pantheon there's always a supreme deity or principle that reigns supreme over all of them. Whether it's the Absolute or Braham of Hinduism, the "One" of the Neoplatonists, the Tao that "cannot be named", the "Great Spirit" of the American Indians etc.

Thus, polytheism in a sense doesn't really exist. In many cases, those "gods" are either symbolic rapresentations of the powers of the supreme divinity or are subordinate entities not too dissimilar from angels (or even saints which in many cases take up the function of patron deities from pagan religions) in the Abrahamic faiths.

Those Greek Gods and Goddesses display a timeless psychology and their psychology sets the stage for us mortals. It's a higher Truth to which we can relate. It's an Absolute psychology rather than that it's concerned with commandments and the nature of the universe and what's beyond. It stays close to Earth and human features and it does so in a healthy way.

This is what interests me about it.

[Henk]

The problem with polytheism for me is that the idea of "multiple" gods doesn't really make sense. The entire point of the one god hypothesis is to posit the existence of a non-contigent reality that is not subject to the problems of finite existence, which by its nature can only be unique (for how do you have multiple non-contigent realities or beings?). In order for God to be God he has to be both absolute and infinite (and thus limitless). To posit another God or multiple Gods would be to set limits to the deity and a finite God contradicts the nature of divinity (which has to be uncreated and not contingent on anything).

Notice that in so called "polytheist" religions this problem is not unknown, and within this polytheist pantheon there's always a supreme deity or principle that reigns supreme over all of them. Whether it's the Absolute or Braham of Hinduism, the "One" of the Neoplatonists, the Tao that "cannot be named", the "Great Spirit" of the American Indians etc.

Thus, polytheism in a sense doesn't really exist. In many cases, those "gods" are either symbolic rapresentations of the powers of the supreme divinity or are subordinate entities not too dissimilar from angels (or even saints which in many cases take up the function of patron deities from pagan religions) in the Abrahamic faiths.

It feels like you only defend the logical God, not a God that appeals to humans. Where's the meaning of it all?