...So what does Idealism and Materialism mean in this context? I think I have an idea, but I want to be sure.
edited 9th Jun '11 11:26:01 AM by Meophist
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.
Who Am I?
And Bobby G said "Let there be a thread on Materialism! And lo..."
Sorry, had to go there. You cant "prove" materialism, or disprove any alternative to it. I suspect that's why Dawkins didnt try. You have to assume it. Martin Gardiner has several essays that touch on people who have, or dont have, a sense of the mysterious in life. You either sense (you dont know how) something beyond what we can see, or you dont. It's a primary subjective experience, and not susceptible to logic or empiricism.
edited 9th Jun '11 11:33:30 AM by DeMarquis
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
vigilantly taxonomish
They are Philosophies of Mind
. Roughly, materialism maintains that reality is based on physical matter, while idealism contends that reality is based on abstract concepts.
Each makes a different set of assumptions about reality, and each leads to some very different ideas about nature of "godlike" beings.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Is that cake frosting?
As for the title question: neither.
All forms of monism are, I think, intrinsically flawed: attempting to reduce the material universe as a bad copy of some ideal, spiritual world, as in Platonic idealism* or as the emanation (not creation) of some purely conceptual, spiritual "One" which has something to do with pure thought, as in the case of German idealism* , is just as incorrect as attempting to reduce the spiritual universe to the material one, as in the case of the many varieties of materialism.
I think that the correct approach to metaphysics is, instead, some variant of dualism, which takes in account matter and spirit as distinct and, instead of attempting to reduce one to the other, attempts to describe the way in which they interact.
Aristotelian metaphysics, I think, takes care of this rather satisfactorily, especially if you take in account the improvements made by Scholasticism over its basic framework.
EDIT: But in any case, I am not sure what this has to do with the question of what gods can do, or if sufficiently advanced aliens would count as gods.
For what matters, my answer to the second question is a definite no. A very powerful alien who interacts with humankind would be... just a very powerful alien who interacts with humankind. If it was benevolent, I might ally with it, and if it was malevolent, I would try to fight him (fruitlessly, most probably), but in any case it would not be deserving of adoration or worship.
edited 9th Jun '11 11:40:51 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
In Riastrad
Bobby: I've struggled with this question myself. I believe in multiple gods; however, as Aon said, they have to follow certain rules. The laws of physics as we know them, not so much, but certain laws of reality, yes.
On the same token, I don't know where they came from. I know they didn't create the universe (that would be silly) so the universe is older than them, which means they came from somewhere or something. The question is what.
However, if I learned for certain that the gods evolved (evolved "developed", not necessarily evolved as the Darwin definition) from lesser beings, It wouldn't impact my view of them as gods negatively; in fact, I'd be even more impressed, since that would mean they accomplished something to get where they are instead of being lucky.
Also, ![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
that is my view on metaphysics.
edited 9th Jun '11 11:38:11 AM by Diamonnes
My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.
...That article is kinda complicated though.
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.
Who Am I?
I like the linked article, but you really have to hunt to find mentions of idealism or materialism in it (I had to use the "find on this page" function). Could you summarize what you think the essential arguments are?
PS- I like what I read regarding "Emergentism".
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
Reality is probably based on both. And neither. And purple. Relativity bitches, it works.
Is that cake frosting?
About gods being evolved from lesser beings: that's basically the position of Mormonism, right?
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
vigilantly taxonomish
Wikipedia prefers "physicalism" to "materialism", on the basis that it encompasses not only matter but other physical things such as waves.
As to how this pertains to gods, basically, Love Happiness (referencing Dawkins) took the stance that any intelligent beings, however godlike, would have to have originated in the physical world, and would be the complex products of evolution. Arthur disputed this, on the grounds that these can only be assumed to be true if one assumes strict materialism.
^ Not really; Mormonism doesn't assume evolution but rather ascendance in the afterlife.
edited 9th Jun '11 11:57:59 AM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
It would depend on what is meant by "god", wouldn't it? If I remember correctly, there's quite a number of definitions for that word.
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.
vigilantly taxonomish
"Superintelligent, superhappy and practically immortal" beings who "control entire solar systems".
Although actually, given the direction the discussion was progressing, I think that definition can be broadened to encompass any beings considerably more powerful and intelligent than humanity.
edited 9th Jun '11 12:08:09 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Is that cake frosting?
I remember reading someone who compared evolution to Azathoth, thinking along the same lines — I do not remember who was the author or the details, but from a purely materialistic perspective I think that the comparison is quite fitting.
edited 9th Jun '11 12:07:53 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
^^ Sounds like something humans can become in the far future.
edited 9th Jun '11 12:07:11 PM by Meophist
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.
Is that cake frosting?
Although actually, given the direction the discussion was progressing, I think that definition can be broadened to encompass any beings considerably more powerful and intelligent than humanity.
But I would certainly refuse to worship this kind of entity — it might be more powerful, more intelligent and longer-lived than I am, but that would not make it deserving of that, no more than I would be deserving of the worship of some heavily brain-damaged, bedridden person.
EDIT: Actually, this reminds me of something I thought in the past — I hope it is not too offtopic, it is related to the main issue. It seems to me that many polytheists use the term "worship" in a radically different sense than the one in which monotheists use the term. Does this sound correct?
edited 9th Jun '11 12:20:04 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
vigilantly taxonomish
Not even if said being was literally immortal, came down from the skies heralded by a choir of angels, emanated love and kindness and proclaimed that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ was nigh? 
In all seriousness, if I encountered one of Love Happiness' aliens, I certainly wouldn't assume them to be gods, though. I'm not sure what it would take for a being to persuade me that they were God, actually.
I wasn't aware that monotheists and polytheists use the term "worship" differently from one another. How do you mean?
I was quite intrigued by the similarities between Aon's gods and LH's aliens. Unlike the Christian God, the difference between the Buddhist gods and Sufficiently Advanced Aliens appeared to be more one of perspective than of actual definition.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Oh My
Oh hey a thread about this...As you can see in the first post my religion's definition of "god" is rather different from the one normally used in the West. They're just races of long lived beings with powers and knowledge greater than that of humans. They can exist on the human plane (the animal plane exists there as well) as well as their own special god plane/s (deva and asura may or may not live in the same realm, it varies). Ghosts too are natural beings that live and die. They exist on their own ghost plane and can travel through planes. People in Naraka, Buddhist purgatory/hell, are confined to that realm as are beings in the human and animal realms.
Now by worshiping gods we don't seem to mean total faith, obedience, and subservience to that god. At least in Thai Buddhism. It's more you pray to this being to help you and said being may or may not help you. You do not really devote yourself wholly to this being though you are filled with great respect for the being and their power. You know that this being's power is limited and that they aren't an all powerful thing, but you respect and pay tribute to them nonetheless. You pay respect and tribute to your teachers and helpers in the human and animal realms too. Gods are just higher up on the respect food chain (big thing in Thailand). Mostly out of respect though you can also pay tribute to apologize to the god or to attempt to bribe some sort of blessing out of the god. The three primary gods in Thai Buddhism to my knowledge are Guanyin, Hotei, and Ganga.
Guanyin is the god form of the Bodhisatta of mercy and compassion. She continuously reincarnates and makes use of her many powers to aid living beings on their path to Enlightenment. She has been the teacher of many individuals either directly or indirectly in any of a number of forms. She can also use her kamma and special god powers to lessen the pain of certain individuals. She cannot break you out of Samsara though. You must do that yourself. At least in Thai Buddhism. In other schools devotees of Guanyin may be taken to her Pure Land where they can work off kamma with much more ease than in the human realm.
Hotei is a god of...something. Happiness, plenitude, and contentment it seems. He is believed by Thai Buddhists to be the god form of some Bodhisatta who may or may not prove to be the Maitreya. The Maitreya is a future Buddha who will come when The Dhamma is forgotten on Earth and he will teach the truest Dhamma.
Ganga is a goddess of water and rivers. She is the living form of the spirit of the Ganges river. Thailand is a very wet country. To say the least. So water is quite the big deal out there. Loi Krathong is a day that celebrates Ganga and her being awesome and not destroying towns and shit for the lulz. It is also believed that by doing this you will receive Ganga's blessing and have a nice clean slate for next year.
The Buddha is not a god currently though he may have been one in a previous life. The Buddha doesn't exist within Samsara at all. He's escaped it completely and gone on to his permanent rest in Parinibbana. The Buddha is his last life was a man in the human realm. The Buddha is worshiped in a sense I suppose. We honor him as a great teacher and say our thanks to him for giving us these teachings. He is not a god though and we do not treat him, or any gods we may worship, like God from Christianity.
edited 9th Jun '11 12:41:51 PM by Aondeug
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Who Am I?
There may be super-advanced aliens who look like Gods, but if they aint supernatural, they aint Gods (merely God-like).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zesHZze8s7M
vigilantly taxonomish
I'm not sure whether "supernatural" is even meaningful within a materialist cosmology.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Oh My
As for supernatural beings and some world beyond this world that isn't at all part of Samsara...These are possibilities. Just as ghosts and gods being aliens are.
...but what does that make people in Naraka? They're living...just highly unlucky humans it seems?
edited 9th Jun '11 12:55:45 PM by Aondeug
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Is that cake frosting?
And of course, from my point of view doing that with respect to any limited being would be incredibly degrading. Not so with respect to a monotheistic God, because that entity — assuming that it exists — created me, and it rightfully owns everything in the most complete of the senses.
Instead, it seems to me — but correct me if I am wrong — that polytheists (or Buddhists) regard their gods like, I dunno, a soldier may regard a great captain. They respect them, admire them, ask them for assistance and advice, but they do not consider themselves theirs in such absolute a sense. And, from my point of view, rightfully so — it would be really quite debasing otherwise, or at least so it seems to me.
edited 9th Jun '11 12:55:46 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Oh My
You have that right with us and how we worship gods, Carc. And you summed my huge ass post into something clearer and concise!
edited 9th Jun '11 12:57:05 PM by Aondeug
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
vigilantly taxonomish
If so, they're extraordinarily long-lived humans.
I was attempting to indicate that the Judeo-Christian God is Himself an entity vastly more powerful and intelligent than humanity.
I don't agree with this. I think God is deserving of worship not because He created me* nor because He owns everything,* but because He is just that good.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Oh My
Extraordinarily long lived humans that can't die after being mauled to the point of death...They just heal back up and repeat the cycle...Until they work off all their negative kamma, die, and are reincarnated elsewhere.
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Not the "wouldn't that be nice?" idealism or the "I wanna be a billionaire, so fuckin' bad..." materialism. Philosophy thread, bitches.
Well, philosophy, religion and aliens. Spun off from a derail in the Atheist or Agnostic?
thread:
I think gods probably exist. But I think they obey the laws of physics, they are just so beyond us in every measure. They are superintelligent, superhappy and practically immortal, and control the resources of entire solar systems. But I don't know if they exist. Does this make me an agnostic theist?
That sounds vaguely similar to Buddhism's view of gods. They have to follow the same rules they're just above us and understand those rules much better than us. And have ways of fucking with said rules without artificial aid.
They also live a long time.
Wait. If you're talking about gods that are simply long-lived, but mortal, technologically advanced, but obeying the laws of physics, and in a much more advanced state of civilization than we are, who don't interfere much in the lives of humans - then aren't you just talking about a hypothetical alien race?
Basically. Everything is living in Buddhism and all living things are bound to reality and must die. Even ghosts and people in Hell have to die...
Which is interesting...Because maybe there really are deva out there! And asura too! A proud and violent warrior race that visited us in the past...oooooh.
There are also gods who do meddle with human lives quite a bit. They tend to be asura or lower level realm deva. Or Bodhisatta god forms. The Bodhisatta can basically reincarnate as whatever the hell they want.
Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomb or a jumbo jet. As Arthur C Clarke put it, in his Third Law: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them. The aliens of our SETI signal would be to us like gods . . . In what sense, then, would the most advanced SETI aliens not be gods? In what sense would they be superhuman but not supernatural? In a very important sense, which goes to the heart of this book. The crucial difference between gods and god-like extraterrestrials lies not in their properties but in their provenance. Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how god-like they may seem when we encounter them, they didn't start that way. Science-fiction authors . . . have even suggested (and I cannot think how to disprove it) that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization. But the simulators themselves would have to come from somewhere. The laws of probability forbid all notions of their spontaneously appearing without simpler antecedents. They probably owe their existence to a (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution...
But...I think alien civilizations most definitely do exist, because of the trillions of inhabitable planets in the universe, and it's likely enough that one of them is that far advanced, so...I'm a theist, by that definition? Huh. Well, I still won't call myself that, because it's fairly rare that a definiton of god(s) involves nothing at all supernatural.
Edit: Yes, that Dawkins quote sums up why I still wouldn't call myself a theist despite believing in Sufficiently Advanced Aliens.
Yeah Buddhism's definition isn't one I've come across too often with other religions...Since they're not supernatural. Preternatural maybe, but everything is natural in Buddhism. There's laws. Things follow them. Shit ends and the bits that made up that shit become other shit and take on a new form. And these things are all made up of little bits that work together and live off other things made up of little bits...
Souls work this way too. Which are just the consciousness and some...thing...that exists separately. It too is made up of little bits that break up and reform to make new things.
@ OTOH: A new word is needed.
God, no more new words, please. "Atheist who believes in aliens" should suffice.
That, dear lady, is Made Of Win.![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]")
"...there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine."
"Imagine"? Absolutely. Imagination is the process of mental picturing, and no theologian can "imagine" God. Can you mentally picture omnipresence? I know I can't. However, the more important question is whether theologians can concieve of God. Dawkins is confusing imagination with conception, I suspect. If Dawkins is suggesting that some finite alien could be greater than the Greatest Concievable Existent, he must have a deeply impoverished conception of God.
"Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process."
This looks like assuming materialism to me. Yes, if one assumes that anything intelligent must be complex
, I agree that that is an incompatible idea with any form of theism I know of
. The more important question is whether materialsm is true.
Well, Dawkins' books tend to promote materialism, and that little excerpt most likely followed a long passage about why it's true, if my experience with him is any indicator.
Actually, it didn't. The passage quoted is from "The God Delusion", and I happen to own a copy. No such "long passage" about materialism appears anywhere in it, to my knowledge. Materialism is simply presumed throughout.
And I don't see the issue with this, materialism being obviously correct and all...
O RLY?
While this looks to me like the start of what could be a fascinating debate, aren't we derailing here?
Dammit, I liked this derail.
So did I...
I'll start a thread.
And so he did.
edited 9th Jun '11 11:34:37 AM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff