jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (58 posts)

Should we define ourselves scientifically or theisticly?

  1. cjhunsinger profile image71
    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago

    For most theists the idea of evolution is a contradiction to the supremacy of a god and the creative powers bestowed upon it. For the Atheist the claim of a creative god violates the current capacity of humanity to reason. That is not to say,  that 25,000 years to the advent of modern science and objective thinking that it was not unreasonable to believe in such omnipotent forces.
    Let us consider that the current scientific human definition is wrong, as it is based on a science of discovery and evolution. Should we consider a religious definition, one that would denote a creation by deity?  For example, the ancient god Atum of Egypt, who is a self sustaining deity and began the process of humanity through the creative process of masturbation. The Sumerian god Marduk, who dates to around 3,000 BCE and is noted in Hebrew as Merodach.  It would seem though that Marduk became the Son of Ea, the Father and, “Ea voluntarily recognized the superiority of the son and hands over to him the control of humanity.” A savior god, the Son.
    Since the advent or invention of writing, at about 6,000 BCE, by the Sumerians, 4,000 deities are noted to possess supernatural and creative powers. This does not include the 300,000,000 gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheon.
    Of the monotheistic beliefs, Aten, Judaism, and Islam ( I do not consider Christianity monotheistic, as it purports  three deities. Judaism held a polytheistic belief, with a singular god, as supreme, but evolved into a monotheistic belief with the influence of Akhenaten of Egypt.) Aten is, perhaps, the blue print of monotheism, as Islam is a plagiarized version of Judaism and Christianity. So, as Aten (Aton) is the original one god, should we define ourselves in the image and likeness of the sun, the representation of Aten, the giver of life? The children of the Sun. Perhaps, this is a truthful observation, as Carl Sagan once said,  “Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff.”
    This is good and it is a scientific fact, but it is lacking something enormously critical to the structure of humanity. We are more than a rock, more than water, more than air, more than an organic structure, as in a plant or, perhaps, a French fry or a squirrel. We can reason. We can ask a question and, in many cases, much to our detriment, we are the only provider of the answers to those questions. It is that element, our capacity to reason, that prompts the definition of Homo sapiens-sapiens, the wise man, the discerning man, the reasoning man.
    We, as the wise Men however, did not just simply pop up in the middle of the desert or in a garden; we had older relatives and they are called homo sapiens, also intelligent beings with a language and they too, had older relatives called, to name a couple, homo-erectus, home habilis to our most distant relative, to date, an old codger that goes by the name of “Sahelanthropus tchadensis” who may be as old as 7 million years.
    Should we change who we are, homo sapiens-sapiens, the reasoning Man or redefine ourselves in accordance with the first monotheism of Aten or in accordance with the beliefs of the other three semi-monotheistic beliefs of Judaism, Christianity or Islam?

    1. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      CJ, you have once again done a fine job of conveying your beliefs, but the entire segment above is bereft of a single fact, (except I suppose that the quote is from Carl Sagan).

      1. cjhunsinger profile image71
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Check your Egyptian history of mythologies.

        1. bBerean profile image59
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No need, unless your claiming they contain proof that “Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff.”  There are no facts in that comment, but many share your belief.  We've been indoctrinated since our earliest years to believe such things, so few challenge them when they get older, yet if they did they would have to honestly conclude it is merely an unprovable belief.

          1. cjhunsinger profile image71
            cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            bBerean
            I  am sure, of course, that you are right. Should you decide to do some research aside from a bible you may find it interesting.

            1. bBerean profile image59
              bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Easy enough to dismiss, but you should think about it.  There really are no facts there.  You too have likely been indoctrinated into scientism, as evidenced by your thinking and representing that there was a fact.  Considering the high priority materialists generally claim to put on tangible proof, much of what they believe is just speculation based on speculation based on speculation, with a possible factual observation at it's inception.  Implying I wouldn't think this if I simply had more exposure to the doctrines of speculation that permeate academia is simply a way to avoid the challenge.  It's done here all the time.

              1. cjhunsinger profile image71
                cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                bBerean
                I have to admit my ignorance when I came across the word 'scientism', so I had to look it up. I found that it was a word originally coined, as a pejorative and used to describe those who felt that an objective and reasoned approach to our questions on existence were best answered with science. In, essence, a word that is bias to an emotional definition of existence and a purported creator. It is much like the word, 'Atheism', which was first coined to diminish the standing of those who refused the belief in a particular deity.
                I will not try to educate you. If you refuse to accept the basics of what Sagan was talking about, for example the speed of light, then any other instruction will be ignored off hand. I have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the creationist account of creation, as I spent much time in the company of Jesuit priests, who expounded on such abilities. That was until 1959 when the encyclical Humani generis, issued in 1950 by Pope Pius XII trickled down to the high school level. You are familiar with the Catholic Church? There are about 1.3 billion Catholics. Larger than  all protestant denominations put together and many would say that if it had not been for the Catholic Church and Constantine, Christianity would simply not exist. Anyway the Church endorses the evolution of Man and of the universe. So you see the original and largest Christian organization believes as Carl Sagan. There is a caveat here though.
                But this does not, even though I find it pleasant, answer my original question. If you can find a way please respond to it.

                1. bBerean profile image59
                  bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Referencing:

                  CJ
                  You predicate an either/or question on a 500 word preamble establishing your beliefs, which must be accepted for the question to even be relevant.  To respond would be to validate the premise.  This is why my original post was addressing issues within the preamble. 

                  You spend even more words responding, but only to dismiss the challenge as being the fault of a lack of education or understanding on my part, which you only assume to be true because I disagree with you and Sagan.  You never actually address the fact that your OP was lacking facts. 

                  You did spend time trying to build credibility based on how impressed you seem to be with your own education, experiences, and oddly the Catholic church.  It appears you are impressed enough for both of us, so excuse me if I don't jump on that bandwagon.  Your credentials, real or imagined, do not resolve my concern.

                  1. cjhunsinger profile image71
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    bBerean

                    You are excused.

                  2. cjhunsinger profile image71
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    bBerean

                    You are excused.

                  3. cjhunsinger profile image71
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    bberean

                    You are excused.

    2. God shet profile image60
      God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Realistically.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    Do you describe a banana by shape or color?

    I mean seriously, why would this be an either/or choice?

    1. cjhunsinger profile image71
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      psyche

      Can you elaborate on your response. It seems a bit obscure, seriously.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    "For example, the ancient god Atum of Egypt, who is a self sustaining deity and began the process of humanity through the creative process of masturbation."
    H U H ? ? ? yikes

    Shall I write another poem?

    Are we part star?
    Should we change who we are:
    Homo sapiens-sapien, the reasoning Man?

    Or are we of Aten?
    Or maybe of Atum?
    Or maybe we're of atoms of Adam?

    Is it too much to ask
    Where we are from?
    Is it too much for us to know?

    God with his mind
    Should find the time
    To tell us who stared the show.

    Yeah.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I meant *started* the show…
      But, maybe He did *stare* the show!…with his *eye* of consciousness!

      1. cjhunsinger profile image71
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Kathryn
        I am convinced that your response was meant to add a positive note to the conversations. Is it possible that you could make another effort.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The essence of Heaven/Spirit manifests in all that exists. Evolution is just evidence of the Great Scientist. Something like that.
          But this may not be a positive note for you, an atheist.

    2. cjhunsinger profile image71
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Kathyrn

      Great Job!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why, Thank You. Your OP is fascinating.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe you could explain this statement:
          "For the Atheist the claim of a creative god violates the current capacity of humanity to reason."
          (I understand God to be a force manifesting in all creation, life and us.)

          The ability to reason is based on a sense of logic. A sense of logic is based on awareness. Awareness comes from consciousness. Consciousness comes from God. We are a small portion of the Whole of Consciousness. Jesus rejoined the Whole. He teaches us how to rejoin the Whole, as well. The Whole is the realm of Spirit. This realm consists of love, joy and peace... or Bliss.

          TWISI
          and
          Pardon My Craziness.

          1. cjhunsinger profile image71
            cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Kathryn
            Best definition of reason,  Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses-----Logic, is the use and study of valid reasoning.
            Your logic is good until you come to, " Consciousness comes from God." This has nothing to do with reason or logic, but is that leap of faith.
            It can be said that the existence of a god is based upon Man's ability to reason that a god exists. Man exists, nature exists, the universe exists, therefore all of this had to have a creator--a god creator. Again, gods existence is based on Man's capacity to reason such an existence, the ultimate creator. Is the belief in a god, god perfect? Yes, with reference to the belief. There can be no other truth.
            Problem, as the existence of god is based upon Man's capacity to reason god, than Man's capacity to reason is perfect. No, it is not and therefore, the premise of a god is based upon an often wrong and erroneous foundation, Man's capacity to reason.
            Logic is not truth, it is a pathway to that elusive goal. For example, a dog is an animal that has four legs, a head, fur and a tail. A horse is an animal that has a tail, four legs, a head and fur, therefore a horse is a dog. This is logical, providing one goes no further in the  examination of what is. This is the difference between a god believer and one who demands more information, as we go down that path. One looks to the road signs for added information and the other does not.
            I hope this was helpful in understanding reason, logic and belief.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "This is the difference between a god believer and one who demands more information, as we go down that path."
              I would agree. One must be open to reality however it is discovered to be manifesting. Being a god believer is being open to possibilities, I would say. Of course, I come from being an atheist at one time.  Proof is vital. Proof comes only from oneself.

              1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Being a god believer closes your mind to all sorts of possibilities. Might want to look up the word "proof"  - what you seem to mean is "opinion,". wink

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                However, based on cjhunsinger quote above, god believers do not look for information, hence a god believer would be of a closed mind, not open to possibilities.

                For example, do we see atheists here open to the possibility of God? Sure. Has anyone ever provided them a shred of hard evidence? No.

                On the flip side, are theists open to possibilities? Do atheists provide them with hard evidence of nature and reality as far as our senses and technology can detect? Absolutely. Do some of them accept it? Of course. Do many vehemently reject or deny it? Yup. Not open to possibilities.

                 

                And yet, that is so very hard to believe considering those who are atheists based on the very accurate statement in the OP...

                "For the Atheist the claim of a creative god violates the current capacity of humanity to reason"

                There you have it Kathryn. If you were indeed an atheist, you have therefore chosen to willfully violate your capacity to reason. From reading your posts and hubs here, it sure looks like you've been a god believer most of your life and never an atheist.



                That makes no sense. You are basically saying that whenever you want something to be proof, you simply decide to make it so even when it is not any kind of proof at all. That is more like wishful thinking.

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What is valid reasoning actually based on? I would say it is based on love… which, lo and behold, is a spiritual thing!

              1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Nonsense. To both statements. wink

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What IS it based on then??? yikes

                  1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this
              2. cjhunsinger profile image71
                cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Kathryn

                Perhaps, one word, knowledge. Valid reasoning still, I do not think,  provides an absolute. It is just more valid, a step toward a greater knowledge, a greater truth..
                Democritus was a Greek who lived roughly 2400 years. He was quite the thinker, probably more so than Socrates, who was born later and probably learned from Democritus. Anyway Democritus 'reasoned' that all things, the universe, was composed of very tiny, indestructible things, which he and his buddy named Epicurus defined as 'atoms' and that atoms composed all things. This was the, "Atomic Theory" that stood until the early 1900's and the discovery of sub-atomic particles.
                By virtue of previous knowledge, which he held of nature, the observation of nature, he reasoned the existence of an atomic structure in all of existence. His reasoning was valid, as has been proven. Valid, yes, but not complete. Not a complete truth.
                Democritus and his buds were probably the first Western World Atheists, pragmatists or materialists.
                One could make the argument that their 'love' of knowledge (Epistemology-"the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion") and their heightened capacity to reason "objectively" brought them to their conclusion and ushered in the age of science, until the Catholic Church (Christianity)  and The Dark Ages.
                Your idea of, "love of", as a force unto itself is tantalizing. Such love or passion however, is sadly a rare commodity among us humans, ideas, knowledge, but advanced to a higher level.
                I hold two US Patents and, as one who invented something that did not previously exist; I can attest to the fact that there is nothing really new under the sun.   My inventions were based upon previous inventions, ideas, previous knowledge, which were only brought to a higher level. This knowledge building is critical to human existence.
                It would be interesting to pursue the, love of, as a singular human motivating force. If you start a Hub, I would be like to contribute.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I said valid reasoning is based on Love... and you say valid reasoning is based on Knowledge.
                  what is knowledge based on?
                  Facts.
                  Love is a fact.
                  not a sentimental emotion, not a passing feeling,
                  A fact.
                  I may be leaning toward poetry… uh oh..

                  1. cjhunsinger profile image71
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Kathryn
                    I think you need to define love. Aside from the generic understanding, it may be a subjective feeling that does not translate from one person to another in quite the same way. One may have a love of mathematics, a passion, if you will, but certainly it is not the same as a love for ones self or another or a child. These, too, will vary in degrees, depth and even definition depending on culture.
                    You may refer to a transcendent love, a uniform, unchanging or static concept, but, I think, you would be hard pressed to show that such a concept is universal.

  4. Link10103 profile image77
    Link10103posted 2 years ago

    If we defined ourselves theistically, we probably wouldn't have the internet.

    What a terrifying world that would be...

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    For Instance, it is logical to follow the Ten Commandments of Jesus or the Eightfold Path of Buddha because these guidelines will prevent us from suffering. It is reasonable to follow them, based on love for ourselves and others.

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No it is not reasonable to follow them for these reasons. No graven images huh? wink

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't even know what a graven image is. lol DO YOU?

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
          Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Not surprised at all. So - you don't know what 10% of the ten commandments even mean.

          Possibly the worst selection of ten morals to follow ever actually. wink

          Edit - yes I do.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh really?
              Here is a forum topic!   I will do the honors of posting it. May I quote this?

            "So - you don't know what 10% of the ten commandments even mean.

            Possibly the worst selection of ten morals to follow ever actually."

            1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
              Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Feel free. big_smile

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Why, thank you very much!

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      This is from the above definition for 'invalid reasoning'.

      "invalid reasoning is any drawing of conclusions that may be false when the premisses on the strength of which they are drawn are true"

      There are indeed people who follow the "Ten Commandments of Jesus or the Eightfold Path of Buddha" that have suffered. It is a highly unlikely probability that anyone could go through life without suffering, with or without the aid of a philosophical worldview. Believing in such a premise that one could go through life following any given belief system and never suffering would be absurd considering all of the varying chaotic external forces reality throws at us each day.

      It leads to further quotations from the above quote once again...

      "whoever believes the conclusion may get into serious troubles, for he believes reality to be other than it really is.""



      You're right, that may very well be true, many folks do follow a lot of different philosophies, but reality will always override them. I mean, most philosophies are just words on paper, right?

  6. mishpat profile image61
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    It would seem that, considering "knowledge by" and "knowledge of acquaintance" theories, the objective mind would define man by both, without prejudice.

    1. cjhunsinger profile image71
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      mishpat

      You pose an interesting couple of thoughts, but it is the, "without prejudice", that I find most endearing, as it goes to a definition of truth.
      I am not quite sure of your point in,  "knowledge by or knowledge of association". I will not try assume here, as I believe your thinking here will stimulate my own. I will l wait for your reply.

      1. mishpat profile image61
        mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        First a correction 1) knowledge by acquaintance and 2) know by description. (My apologies.  I left something half done for a while and failed to correct the finished product when I returned.)  These two turn of the century (20th century) off shoots of epistemology surface every once in a while, but I haven't looked at them in earnest for some 40 years.  I take them as I understand them.  Knowledge by acquaintance is includes personal experience which may not have credible proofs but are accepted by the holder.  Knowledge by description is acquired knowledge through study and research.  Credible proofs would include that which is accepted by not necessarily truth.  But here in your OP, man can be defined by each or either depending on the subject matter and the proponent.

        PS - I toy with a third, "knowledge by association" which I was considering above.

        1. cjhunsinger profile image71
          cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          mishpat
          Are you speaking of empirical knowledge, that which is experienced or personally observed. I would also think that, 'knowledge by association' would fall into this category.
          Any reference I make in defining that which is, ie, Man would be based upon a systemic knowledge, which would be that knowledge previously known and built upon by previous generations. I  would also appeal to a, a priori  form of  knowledge and a combination thereof. There are many ways of achieving knowledge, but to actually define knowledge is difficult, as each processing center, the human brain, is different.
          I do not think that we can give definition by simply wanting something to be something. We must ask, why we want it to be so? Do we look at something objectively or through an eye piece of personal  preference, want or need? Without prejudice is easy to say, but difficult to achieve, as we sometimes fail to understand our own motivations.
          When I made the transition from devote Catholic to Atheist, a period of years, it was not to be an Atheist, it was, rather, to possess a knowledge of god, Catholicism, that would set me apart from the rest of the sheep, as I wanted to be a priest.  Simply put, I had to possess the ultimate truth of god and why a god, how a god. This meant that I had to know why I needed one, why anybody needed one and why did some say that there was no god. My meager abilities at the time were certainly not steeped in great philosophical wisdom or thought, but why 1+1=2, but the square of 2 is not 1. If I may use that analogy. 


          ,

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Internal Hell (of consciousness) is worse than any external condition foisted upon us.
    This is reality.

 
working