The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

To clarify, I'm not really asking what to believe. I'm asking DeMarquis if - in cases where there's no way to prove whether my beliefs are right or not - he thinks I should act on them.

I think basic ethics require that you limit acting on unprovable subjective beliefs into the private sphere and limit your public action to what everyone can agree is factua...

Hmm...

@Corvidae: I do. But I'll let this guy say it for me: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian

Some people are called to faith, others are not. I don't know why. But I'm getting no special treatment just because I can feel him and you can't.

I'll take that "hmm" as a good sign.

Good to know.

I love this man.

And here we have yet another reminder that (Nope Nope Nope)he is a modern Pope.

Now, for pantheism, which I find fascinating. Can you elaborate a bit on what you are talking about, Handle?

God is the Universe, sentient beings are the Universe perceiving itself, sapient beings are the universe thinking about itself, we are stardust, pale blue dot, Carl Sagan, vedic scripture, nondualism, Satchitananda, Luminous mind, thankfulness, agape, yadda yadda yadda.

Look, that stuff is beautiful and useful, but enlightenment only enhances who you already are. If you're a good person, you may become a saint. If you're a jerk, you may become a more proficient and efficient jerk. Look up that insightful asshole Osho, you'll see what I mean.

New Rule: any enlightenment which allows you to commit a bio-terror attack is no true enlightenment.

Question: does pantheism imply that the universe is in some sense fundementally good?

That's No True Scotsman. Maybe it's insufficient or superficial, but not untrue. And you've got the Kotomine Kirei of the world, who were born broken.

As for your second question, I think the answer is Mu.

edited 24th Feb '17 1:05:19 PM by Corvidae

Hm, this is interesting. You don't appear to regard some element of humanism as an inherent component of enlightenment. "Enlightenment", in it's 17th century European sense (although there are other definitions, we'll get to that) refers to the movement that believed that applying logic and reason to the study of nature provides people with greater knowledge and understanding. Historically, this movement was a reaction against, among other things, the religious wars and persecution of the previous centuries. If understanding more about the universe does not provide net benefit to mankind in the form of less organized violence, among other things, then why associate the movement with "light"? "Light" implies "good" as a moral force, but if the universe is fundamentally amoral, then why revere it in a spiritual sense, as pantheism seeks to do?

Oh, and No True Scotsman refers to redefining a category in order to exclude outcomes you don't like. I'm not redefining enlightenment, I'm asking in what sense a terrorist could be considered enlightened.

So Mu to you too.

edited 24th Feb '17 2:10:11 PM by DeMarquis

You don't necessarily have to think that something is good to see it as important, awe inspiring or worthy of respect. I guess it's debatable were the line between "this thing is amazing" and "spiritual reverence" is drawn though.

And the enlightenment thing might work if you just define it as "knowledgeable" or something. A terrorist could be very intelligent and know all kinds of things, and still be a terrorist.

Enlightened Antagonist is a trope after all.

Pantheism: "Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god." (Wikipedia)

The first basic principle of scientific pantheism (on the World Pantheism page) is "Reverence, awe, wonder and a feeling of belonging to Nature and the wider Universe."

To Revere: "to feel deep respect or admiration for (something)."

"Reverence" seems to imply an admiration, a feeling that something is both powerful and good. "Divinity" seems to imply that this something is an active force, that it has or imposes, in some manner of speaking, an inherent sense of direction and purpose.

If there is an active force in the universe that is compatible with putting salmonella in people's salads so that they cant vote, then that thing is not worthy of reverence, awe or respect.

And if that thing one is in reverence of is merely increased knowledge and understanding in the passive sense (i.e., it's just the outcome of human curiosity and analysis) then I don't see how any sense or manner of divinity is involved at all, even in a metaphorical sense. It seems to me that if all you are doing is relabeling the concepts associated with learning things, then nothing is added by including all the spiritual framework and language.

To be clear, I think it's perfectly legitimate to feel reverence for the centuries long project to increase human understanding, but why call that pantheism? What does the term "Pantheism" add that "Humanism" or "the Enlightenment" does not?

edited 24th Feb '17 2:53:35 PM by DeMarquis

Some people clearly seem to disagree.

Well, sure. But if we regard all views as morally equal, then we are endorsing relativism. I think there is a line we can expect people not to cross. Perhaps you believe that this moral line can be derived from a study of natural phenomena (including human history), or perhaps you believe that this line has to be obtained from "somewhere else." But either way, there is a line, there are moral standards. But it seems to me that if you regard the universe and nature as fundamentally amoral, then there is no basis for pantheism.

edited 24th Feb '17 3:51:35 PM by DeMarquis

I'm not getting into that discussion again. What really bothers me though, is the idea of people who unknowingly act against their own self interest or moral values due to being mistaken about the premises. I've done that, and would prefer to avoid doing it again, which is why I want to take as few things on faith as possible.

I apologize for dragging this out and being all passive-aggressive and so on, but your continued insistence that I should "trust my intuition" has become a serious Berserk Button for me.

I don't know what other choice you have. And our intuitive sense exists for a reason: it's a cognitive heuristic that conserves the brain's resources and preserves a successful behavioral repertoire that your mind has learned over the course of your life (albeit largely sub-consciously). Your intuition is a kind of combination of internal desires that require satiation and responses that successfully satiated those desires starting with early childhood on. You cant do a full cost/benefit analysis for every decision you face- that would burn you out and absorb all your time. And for many types of questions (what to have faith in) there really are no objective answers. At some point you just have to trust yourself.

So, please, don't go berserk.

In the context of mythology, did anyone knows where I can find the website that collects different form of mythology, fables and children's stories and assign types to them based on shared similarities? A sorta proto-tv tropes.

Personally, I've seen enlightenment as understanding of "how things are" (whatever it means). Depending on the individual this can lead to a transformation that is either close to something like sainthood or irreversible trauma. This would depend on the individual and their ability to handle it.

I said "as few things as possible". Please don't strawman me. And while it's true that I can't choose what to feel, I can choose what to do about it.

We must have works pages on various mythologies around here somewhere.

Hey, I found what I was talking about - A library of folktales.

It's a fascinating read, and I'd bet it'd be helpful for any writers around.