The Most Astounding Fact (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

[Griffin NoName]

Thanks.

[Roland Deschain]

Some very interesting concepts on deities appearing now, with most along the lines that I like to think of deities on; create the universe and let it work itself out. I look upon any possible god as being "god-like", which is an important distinction, and not defined in the sense that most current religions define them. By this I mean, as I said previously, evolved in some way as we are, maybe with some intervention from their own technology, and developed so far ahead of us as to be extremely powerful. Arthur C Clarke had a great idea with The Sentinel (later 2001: A Space Odyssey), and its descendents, which is very possible too. For me, everything has to evolve in some way, no matter whether it's through "natural" processes, or it has been given a helping hand/pseudopod/cilia/tentacle/noodly appendage, which ultimately belong to evolved beings.

For a long time now, i've liked to think of nothing as impossible. Nothing can be truly impossible, as that would be impossible to prove, just shown to be highly unlikely. Even then, it does not mean it's impossible. What was thought of as impossible 20 years ago, is thought of as de rigueur today, so what will be possible even just 1000 years from now, a mere blip even in our own human history? I'm not sure creating universes will be within our reach at that point, but maybe in a few million years if we have the foresight not to destroy ourselves long before then.

This feeling of interconnectedness and awe many feel at points in their lives is called the numinous, which takes two forms (Das Heilige (The Idea of the Holy) - Rudolf Otto). The first is mysterium tremendum, which is the fear. The second is mysterium fascinans, which is the awe and fascination. These are common to many religions throughout our history, and have been felt by many non-religious people, such as Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and many other scientists. I have felt it myself when listening to music, reading books, watching films/TV, and seeing pictures of the wonders that lie in wait for us in our universe, yet not once have I ever been tempted to attribute it to some "other" being. I accept it for what I believe it to be, and that is a part of not only what we are, but what we can become. I'm not ashamed to say that this feeling has also brought a tear to my eye on more than one occasion, so deeply did it affect me (more than anyone, Carl has done this to me). Maybe i'm just a romantic at heart, and this feeling is an oddity (oh, what an oddity!) of our own evolution, and it means nothing in the big picture, but I long for everyone to feel as I do in these moments with no thought other than that we are all connected through the origin of our universe, the wonders of stellar evolution, the origin of our planet's life, and our ultimate fate as a species.

The age old questions of who we are and where we're going will never leave us unless they are genetically bred out, but I don't think it's a good idea to do so purposely, as they have driven us ever onwards to greater achievements, and will do so for as long as we exist. Our race feels so alone and isolated, here on our blue-green planet in a seeming backwater of our galaxy, that it is only natural that we would invent something far greater than ourselves who interacts with us on a daily basis so as not to feel so alone, but so great is the knowledge we now have compared to 6000 years ago, although we have not really even scratched the surface yet, that I think it's about time we began to seriously think about growing up as a species, and put away such childish concepts as a personal god. Petty differences are destroying us all.

[Griffin NoName]

This feeling of interconnectedness and awe many feel at points in their lives is called the numinous

Also, the Transpersonal. Have you read any Roberto Assagioli or Ken Wilber?

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

Interesting thoughts.

[Roland Deschain]

Also, the Transpersonal. Have you read any Roberto Assagioli or Ken Wilber?

No I haven't. I'll make a note and look them up. Any particular books of theirs you would recommend?

[Griffin NoName]

Assagioli Transpersonal Development: The Dimension Beyond Psychosynthesis . It's quite a tough read, but I think worth it. He has one other book, on Psychosynthesis, if you want to find out more about that. But it's the Transpersonal book I meant.

As for Ken Wilber, hard to recommend one over another. Quite prolific and anything is a good read. The only distinct one really is Grace and Grit which is about his wife dying of cancer - ie. different type of book - so you might want to avoid that. Unless that subject interests you.

[Aggie]

Assagioli Transpersonal Development: The Dimension Beyond Psychosynthesis . It's quite a tough read, but I think worth it. He has one other book, on Psychosynthesis, if you want to find out more about that. But it's the Transpersonal book I meant.

Odd, I think I saw that at a garage sale yesterday, but didn't pick it up to investigate it.

[Opsa]

Maybe i'm just a romantic at heart, and this feeling is an oddity (oh, what an oddity!) of our own evolution, and it means nothing in the big picture, but I long for everyone to feel as I do in these moments with no thought other than that we are all connected through the origin of our universe, the wonders of stellar evolution, the origin of our planet's life, and our ultimate fate as a species.

I hear ya, RD. I also like your
"Our race feels so alone and isolated, here on our blue-green planet in a seeming backwater of our galaxy, that it is only natural that we would invent something far greater than ourselves who interacts with us on a daily basis so as not to feel so alone" comment.

I think most of us are awed and grateful for certain points in our lives (if we are at all observant people) and we  have only the rest of the universe to thank for them. I guess some people need to feel that presence as a personal god, and others are more comfortable with a Great Everything experience.

It's a personal choice and it shouldn't really matter to others what our choice may be. The problems start when people think others should think like they do, and unfortunately that goes for some atheists as well as the religious zealots.

[Aggie]

The age old questions of who we are and where we're going will never leave us unless they are genetically bred out, but I don't think it's a good idea to do so purposely, as they have driven us ever onwards to greater achievements, and will do so for as long as we exist. Our race feels so alone and isolated, here on our blue-green planet in a seeming backwater of our galaxy, that it is only natural that we would invent something far greater than ourselves who interacts with us on a daily basis so as not to feel so alone, but so great is the knowledge we now have compared to 6000 years ago, although we have not really even scratched the surface yet, that I think it's about time we began to seriously think about growing up as a species, and put away such childish concepts as a personal god. Petty differences are destroying us all.

I listened today to this interview with Robert Wright who has a bit of a unique take on it; to summarize roughly, he proposes that our ideas of god have evolved to match the needs of society and human development, that these ideas have been completely wrong at certain times in the past and very likely are pretty wrong today, but that the overall development of the idea of god leaves open the idea that there may be an overarching pattern of moral development (which is possibly is inherent to natural selection itself).  I don't agree with him on all fronts, but it's an interesting listen.  He makes the point fairly late in the interview that while a personal, anthropomorphic God may be an entirely incorrect interpretation of the divine, for some people it may be the only effective way to approach the divine (due to the limitations of a human brain that really hasn't evolved to grapple with abstracts).


I know for some atheists, their chief complaint is not the idea of God, but the terrible things that have been done in the name of God and religion. Call me a cynic, but I'd contend that the only reason terrible things have generally not been done in the name of atheism is lack of opportunity and social dominance.

[Swatopluk]

Apart from a lot done in the Soviet/Maoist block. Religious believers where always high on the target list.
Albania was possibly the most extreme* with officially declaring itself to be the first atheist state in history and seeking to eradicate religion once and for all.

*Pol Pot war more murderous but hostility to religion was just one tiny bit in his autogenocidal campaign.

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

I contend you can find zero example in history where someone is killing in the name of not-belief (atheism).

There are anti-theists, who have certain faith that there are no gods of any kind-- but these are few.   And none were in power.  Even Mao was a spiritualist (not atheist), and Stalin was raised Eastern Orthodox, and never recanted so far as anyone knows.

These regimes killed for cult of personality, for overly zealous social dogma, or simply out of extreme paranoia.  None killed due to a lack of faith in deities (atheism).

To claim they did, is to rewrite history.  In spite of their official words, they were anything but demonstrative of a lack of faith in deities--- they had deities alright, they just called their gods by different names.

[Swatopluk]

I just say: Enver Hoxha
The wiki entry on state atheism has some other examples.
Of course it can always be claimed that it was just persecution of ideological rivals for power but the same could be said about a lot if not most believer-on-different-believer persecution.
Lenin had many priests secretly killed while maintaining an image of mere 'disapproval'. Given his private writings and secret orders there were strong hints that those actions were motivated not only by the wish to crush the competition but also by a personal hatred of religion. Although there was both hyperbole and hypocrisy galore in the speeches of Stalin's chief procsecutor Vyshinsky, among the charges was often the false claim of secretly holding and spreading religious beliefs. In at least one case he mocked his victims with the promise of an atheist equivalent of absolution for renouncing those beliefs before execution.
So, quite a number of cases of 'in the name of atheism'. Genuine motivation is of course a rarer case but, as I said, the same can be said about 'holy wars'.

[Griffin NoName]

............. for some people it may be the only effective way to approach the divine (due to the limitations of a human brain that really hasn't evolved to grapple with abstracts).

? At 18 months my grandson walked past an open door through which an icy draft was blowing and said "winter". (he was right, it was winter).

Ok, maybe not striclty abstract, but to an 18 month yr old it is surely.

Other than that, it makes sense to me.

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

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your analysis, Swato.  But there it is.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There has been prosecution from atheist states towards religious individuals, although it has been mostly towards religions institutions, nevertheless I agree with Aggie that if there were more weight of non believers it wouldn't be difficult to get some equivalent atheist prosecution everywhere else.

Think of the teachers that had been threatened by creationists, the ones that had been assaulted, the doctors killed... I'm sure that if I look hard enough I will get a fair amount of cases that will get you (and me) the blood boiling, now imagine someone saying something like "we have to defend ourselves from those barbarians" and it wouldn't take much.

You may think that atheists wouldn't do something like that, because currently those are a (relatively) enlightened minority, but the moment more people gets into the bandwagon, more people will be swayed but those kinds of arguments, in the end it's always a matter of we are right and they are wrong.

OTOH I do believe that religion makes things worse simply because it invokes the absolute, so critical minds are less likely to be voiced, and more individuals will proceed without question, but considering that the general motivations rarely have anything to do with faith I'm sure evil can be done in the name of atheism as much as I don't like the idea.