The Most Astounding Fact (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

[Aggie]

Some folk seem to need to point to something and say, "that is [a/my] God" in order to be Satisfied.   So why not give them one that is not a monstrous concept?

Not unlike giving a smoker a Nicotine patch, I think.

Funny thing is...  strip out the act of smoking and the associated chemicals produced by the cigarette, and nicotine on its own isn't all that addictive, nor is it dreadfully harmful (hardens the arteries, but it may protect the brain from some disorders). I used to use nicotine gum as a cheap, legal stimulant for working extended hours, and I can tell you that I have a far harder time keeping away from caffeine. Dosage may have been a factor; my typical daily dose was 1 - 4 mg, but I never had issues quitting cold turkey after weeks to months of continuous daily use. There was little 'experience' to my use, just a desired effect (and to quit, a regular piece of gum does a good job of replicating the experience, such as it is). The few times I've taken up a temporary cigarette habit (generally on holidays), I've found that the act of smoking remains quite attractive long after the pack is gone.  The metaphor may be appropriate here, too.

Interesting.

And kinda Japanese, if I understand Japanese culture at all-- an online friend has lived there for years, and has commented on the Japanese notions of spirituality/deities.  It's odd from a Western perspective, in that few Japanese households lack a shrine to some household god or other, but few believe it is a real thing-- it's just What You Do, without any real understanding of the Ritual.  (again, according to my friend's understanding).

Ritual has it's place, but I tend to flip it on its head compared to the Japanese example you reference above. For me, ritual is a good way of centring your intent, and allowing you to focus on the moment.  My housemate and I smudged the garden this morning (a more appropriate use for tobacco than casual smoking, IMHO... I grow a bit of my own for such things), and afterwards sat down over tea and discussed this. Understanding the Ritual is more effective than What You Do, although even just going through the motions of a traditional activity can be calming and centering.  To me, the details of the ritual aren't important, and there's no supernatural significance of a particular ritual, but it can be a useful tool for mindscaping.

He was often confused as "christian", even though he never claimed to be-- and indeed, denied being one.  But he felt zero need to proselytize his personal deities, rather he proselytized his Ideas instead:  the ideas of peaceful and altruistic life.

That's the essence of 'goodness' I think... try to live your ideals so that you can unabashedly act as an example of those ideas without hypocrisy. I've met some trickster types who aren't what you'd consider good people in terms of behaviour, but live with such authenticity that it's a moot point.   It's also the only way that the idea of Christ makes sense to me...  not god descending into a human body, but a human so in touch with godliness that it amounted to a similar thing. I suppose I'm a very, very liberal christian in that respect.

[Opsa]

 I cannot call myself an atheist, even though I do not believe in the omnipotent, all powerful angry stranger-in-the-sky. I never did believe in that god. I believe that god exists though, at least as an idea.

I like this quote from Aggie:
"Imagine the best possible god you can think of, and then try to live up to the standards of how you would have that god act if it were placed in your exact circumstances."

I might extend this to say that we can think of god as an extension of ourselves that includes all else around it. We influence the world. As a working portion of god, we choose whether or not to work as a good element of the world. I am happier when I believe that I am going with the flow of positivity. I am upset with myself when I lose patience, so I strive to find harmony with all the rest (of you) that is part of this amazing life.

I do not think of god in terms of a separate thing from us, a thing that all ready knows it all. God learns and evolves, just as we do. God can't grant wishes or stop bad things from happening, but god can inspire us to treat everything with respect. When we respect each other and ourselves we are less likely to do thoughtless things that cause pain. When we realize that we are not perfect, that we can screw up just as well as the next guy, we can forgive because we are in touch with this god of ourselves. When we control our emotions for the sake of peace (in our households or on a global scale) we can be said to be respecting god. We're respecting each other. You could call it benevolent, if you thought that fit.

My own best way changes and grows with time. God can't exist without us. We're the same stuff. Can we exist without god? Probably. Why have god, then? Maybe to remind us that we're all in this together. God is maybe the stars, and maybe the stuff between them, and between us as well.

[Roland Deschain]

Japanese spirituality, if I generalise, is a weird thing when viewed through the eyes of a white westerner. I like that though, precisely because it is so different to my perceived experience in life. Someone I used to know visited her son in Japan (he lives there), and he showed her around, getting to see things most tourists would never dream of seeing. One of these places she visited was a temple (ok, so maybe this wasn't that off-the-wall), where there were fortunes written on paper, and rolled up. All you did was pay the fee, and you could get your fortune from a random piece of paper. What she noticed, and this is ingenious, is that if one of the Japanese people didn't like their fortune, they would keep paying for another until they found one they did like, essentially saying, albeit in an unconscious way, that you make your own luck in life. That really stuck with me, the image of them doing this.

Nice synopsis on Ghandi there. If only the people of that area had truly listened to him, then maybe it would be a far better situation there today. Who knows? At least it would have been better than the Kashmiri and Indian/Pakistani conflicts.

Opsa, so you are essentially saying that the whole universe is a god in and of itself, and so every constituent part is also god? This would put it on a par with a living organism, just a bloody great big one. I like the idea of the universe as one large conscious entity, with it learning through us. I think Carl Sagan said something along these lines once, something like "We are a way for the universe to know itself".

[Griffin NoName]

Some folk seem to need to point to something and say, "that is [a/my] God" in order to be Satisfied.   So why not give them one that is not a monstrous concept?

Not unlike giving a smoker a Nicotine patch, I think.

Want one !! Or a huge cigarette set in a shrine for me to worship.

it's ok, I haven't given up giving up

[pieces o nine]

God can't exist without us.

Somewhere...I have a copy of a prayer/poem written by a Russian monk in Tzarist times. The monk is grappling with his own changing concepts of deity, and extrapolating from that the shifting amounts of worship offered from the larger human populace. There is a plaintive line about being 'distressed' for god, about whether he's getting enough of the proper attention since his existence is somehow bound up with being worshiped. If I can find it within a reasonable future I'll post it here; I think our theists, deists, and atheists alike would enjoy it.

[Aggie]

Opsa, so you are essentially saying that the whole universe is a god in and of itself, and so every constituent part is also god? This would put it on a par with a living organism, just a bloody great big one. I like the idea of the universe as one large conscious entity, with it learning through us. I think Carl Sagan said something along these lines once, something like "We are a way for the universe to know itself".

I like to think that life is the universe's way of knowing itself; if you like, you can extend this to say that life is god's way of knowing the universe. The evolution of life on this planet has generated LOTS of 'knowing' (i.e. observed stimuli of any form, not necessarily requiring a nervous system).  It probably started off with chemolithotrophs, which are capable of 'knowing' the chemical structure around them. Microorganisms undoubtedly 'know' your body far better than you do.  Plant life as a whole 'knows' a whole lot about electromagnetic radiation on this planet. Fungi 'know' a lot about the forest, to the point where they direct the flow of energy between different species of tree*, and also a lot about dead things. Once you get up multicellular animals with nervous systems, it's clear that an incredible proportion of planet earth is under observation, from the molecular level on up.

Humans... well, humans have stepped out even further than this, and have become observers of the universe.  Assuming there's no other intelligent life anywhere out there (which is a rather big assumption, IMHO), the consciously observed universe has expanded incredibly during the course of human history, especially over the last century or few. Knowledge of the universe may not ever have existed until we began to gain it.

Besides this, humans have an innate drive to do something that as far as we know is unique on this planet...  some of us seek to know God.  If you care to concede the point that life is god's way of knowing the universe, then humankind is God's way of knowing god. From this viewpoint, we are the handmirror of the divine.  I think that constitutes a reason to try reflect back the purest image we can muster.  

*sound like metaphysical gobbledegook? Far from it; ectomycorrhizae can move carbon between trees and therefore potentially influence succession in transitional ecosystems. Fungi have been conducting silviculture for far longer than humans.


----

On a side note, I was mulling over the concept of a Best Possible God today, and was struck by a thought regarding atheism.  I can certainly sympathize with the atheist viewpoint that holds that since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of deities or the supernatural, it's illogical to believe in deities. However, if asked to contemplate the concept of a Best Possible God (heavy emphasis on possible), I wonder what proportion of atheists would posit that the Best Possible God is no god at all.  In other words, if one was given the free choice of a purely benevolent and non-interfering god (no power to directly manipulate reality) and no god at all, how many people would insist that having no god at all is the better option?

[Griffin NoName]

Warning: Provocative post.

I wonder who the first person to think of a G-d (or Gods) was. Like is there any evidence Stone Age (wo)men hadd this concept (I suppose they might have laid stones at funny angles or something). Anyway, it seems it was a very bad idea to me and they should have been sent to the naughty corner for inventing something that was going to cause wars, madness, and blind faith. (I'm all for faith if it is not blind).

[Swatopluk]

The way it looks like personalized deities were a rather late development. Religion probably started with impersonal animism, i.e. belief in spirits but without namimg them or giving them an individual face. Organized religion can be traced back to prehistoric times (e.g. in Turkey). I think for the earliest times it is impossible  to distinguish between religion and magic (traces of the latter are still deeply ingrained in 'modern' religions).
Even the Neanderthals must have had some spiritual beliefs or ritual burials would not make sense.

[Griffin NoName]

Even the Neanderthals must have had some spiritual beliefs or ritual burials would not make sense.

There's a ritual of Changing the Guard at Buckinham Palace every day.  I don't think the Queen is a spirit or a God. Admiited it is not a ritual burial, but there's not much point to it as far as I can see.    Except the Great God of the Tourists bearing gold.

[Opsa]

Warning: Provocative post.

I wonder who the first person to think of a G-d (or Gods) was. Like is there any evidence Stone Age (wo)men hadd this concept (I suppose they might have laid stones at funny angles or something). Anyway, it seems it was a very bad idea to me and they should have been sent to the naughty corner for inventing something that was going to cause wars, madness, and blind faith. (I'm all for faith if it is not blind).

I was going to comment that it's not god that causes wars, madness and blind faith, it's people. But then again, if I have a sense that god is the (bloody great big) organism of Being, then we are part of god, and so in a way god did invent these terrible things.   But not all alone. We did, as part of the whole. Just as we are part of what creates peace and sanity and seeking truth.

We seem to be the things that think, thus it could be thought that we are the part of the (bloody) Great (big) Everything that thinks. Whenever we enlighten ourselves and choose to react in positive ways, we contribute to the good of everything, and vice versa.

Why be good? Why not just snatch that yummy looking electronic gadget out of someone else's hands and keep it for ourselves? Why? Because we are the consciousness. We want the world to go well. The way we can control things is to control ourselves. We are the great spirit. Which way can we push the world? Which way do we want it to go? Shall we push for a good world or a bad one? C'mon, o little bits o' god, isn't it up to us?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Being a self-admitted atheist (little-A here) on other venues, I've often been accused of insisting there cannot be a god, because I hate the very idea itself.

But that is simply not true:  I would very much love it if there were a benevolent deity watching out for the fate of humankind-- even one who's only interested in the Big Picture, and lets us mere mortals deal with our personal day-in-and-day-out problems pretty much on our own.

By letting the deity take care of the Big Picture:  keeping massively large rocks from hitting the earth-- until we learn how to do this for ourselves is one example of a Big Picture item.   There are others.

But letting a benevolent deity take care of these?  I can worry about the little things, and quit thinking that humans are riding a handbasket directly to Hell, either figuratively or literally.

Because, occasionally, I do contemplate what would happen to humans, if a really big rock were to strike the earth--- and I don't much care for all the possibilities in such an event, none are good ones in my opinion-- a return to stone-age sustenance-survival would be to throw away all progress (and lives that were spent in getting there) as if it never happened at all.

So, I, for one, am an atheist who would be quite delighted to be presented with unquestionable evidence that a benevolent deity truly does exist.

I'm already convinced an evil/capricious one does not exist-- there is too much good in life for such a being to be hanging around.  (yeah, I am well aware there is evil too-- but so far, all of that can be traced to either purely random events, or human stupidity/selfishness/indifference-- none of those causes are even a little bit divine).

I would not be interested, much, to learn of a completely indifferent deity-- no real point, other than, "that's nice".  Is there?   I'd have about as much involvement in such a being, as an ant worker would have in the leftover Lunar Rover gathering dust on the moon... that is to say, none at all.

So here's one atheist who would say, "yes, let's" with respect to the best of all possible gods.

As Author C Clarke noted?  We humans are still very much in the childhood stage... we still could use some parenting, as a species.

My $0.02, for what it's worth:  here's a sawbuck, and you can buy some coffee with it.

[Griffin NoName]

................-- a return to stone-age sustenance-survival would be to throw away all progress (and lives that were spent in getting there) as if it never happened at all.

This one has always worried me.

And the more we advance the more ancient methods are lost as well. At present lots of people know how to sew and hand weave and knit etc so as long as some animals survived we could clothe ourselves, but the number of people who do these crafts is reducing all the time.

[Swatopluk]

So, I, for one, am an atheist who would be quite delighted to be presented with unquestionable evidence that a benevolent deity truly does exist.

As Pratchett put it some atheists hate god for not existing
And then there are the Discworld atheists always using a lightning rod. They know that the gods exist (all those lighning strikes and angry mobs of gods in front of their doors) but refuse to believe in them  because they are not worthy of it.
Not to forget the world's first ceramic atheist (a golem) who seems to be the only one to actually read Omnian pamphlets and is eager to discuss theology provided the debate is logical and fact based.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

So, I, for one, am an atheist who would be quite delighted to be presented with unquestionable evidence that a benevolent deity truly does exist.

As Pratchett put it some atheists hate god for not existing
And then there are the Discworld atheists always using a lightning rod. They know that the gods exist (all those lighning strikes and angry mobs of gods in front of their doors) but refuse to believe in them  because they are not worthy of it.
Not to forget the world's first ceramic atheist (a golem) who seems to be the only one to actually read Omnian pamphlets and is eager to discuss theology provided the debate is logical and fact based.

I had forgotten that-- thank you for the reminder.

[Opsa]

Bob, I think that the difference between you and I is only that you define god as a (fictional) benevolent individual and I define god as the (possible) consciousness of all things.

We both seem to believe that we are responsible for our actions, and that we can do things to help the world.