Ojuice5001

First of all, this post is only for those who can answer all three of these with a "no":

1. Are you inclined to be offended, ridiculing, or in any way in the mood to flame someone when you read a post that's about the theory that, in the eighteenth century, Yahweh lost rule over large parts of his realm (though not all of it), and was replaced by a pantheon of non-revealed gods who, in many cases, have ties to post-Enlightenment cultural trends?

2. When you hear a strange phrase, are you inclined to ridicule it, even without being sure what it means?

3. Did you register in the month of April 2003?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, I recommend not reading any further, much less posting a reply. Okay, now I'm ready for the actual post.

The question of which gods hold the most influence over the modern industrial world is a complex one. You might think it was Yahweh, but the same criterion (namely, of course, religious affiliation) would lead you to believe that medieval Europe was ruled by Yahweh. So, was Yahweh in charge during the medieval period, or the modern period, or both? Remembering that Yahweh is rather authoritarian, and that the Christian religious organizations have much less power now than in medieval times, and similar facts, I think it makes the most sense that Yahweh wanted a world similar to the medieval one, and did not want the modern post-Enlightenment world. I also thought that the modern world was unique enough that it was also not engineered by any of the older, pre-Christian gods. I may be changing my mind about this, but I get ahead of myself. What did I conclude up until a short time ago?

Well, of the modern phenomena that indicate a decline in Yahweh's rule, because he probably doesn't like them, an obvious example is secularization. For a long time, I assigned too much importance to this, and that's how I came to refer to the post-Enlightenment gods with a term like "atheist gods." As you can imagine or remember, I was flamed a lot for using this phrase or variations thereon. It certainly was misleading--but on two levels, not just the more obvious one.

First, the exoteric misunderstanding that most people should have known better than to commit. It was not in any way an attempt to imply that atheists believe in or worship the post-Enlightenment gods or any others. I have to take a significant amount of blame, since I am bad at coining phrases. But I think that, in context, the phrase shouldn't have been that confusing. And the misreading is a premature conclusion even on the level of literal grammar. Think of it this way--Bast is still the goddess of cats, and Mercury is still the god of thieves, even though few thieves and no cats believe in or worship the old pre-Christian gods.

Furthermore, I might add that this concept is about as absurd as
an argument I see made here by atheists. I mean the argument that God may well prefer for people to be atheists, since he doesn't show himself in an unambiguous way.

Anyway, though, even the right interpretation of the phrase "atheist gods"--the idea that these gods would prefer people to be atheists--was misleading. It implies that atheism is a major goal of the pos-Enlightenment gods. But in fact, it's more likely to be either a minor goal, or a means to an end, or a by-product of other policies towards humanity. Atheism is not that important a thing in the world, and I had a tendency not to realize this until I changed my terminology.

So the right label for a group of non-revealed successors to Yahweh was something else. A far superior label is "post-Enlightenment gods." Instead of making strong theological implications, it reflects that, first, the Enlightenment was when their reign began, and second, that the kinds of culture they prefer are those of post-Enlightenment Europe and similar places.
Its only major flaw is that it might remind someone of "postmodern" more strongly than it should. Nothing's perfect...

So the label "post-Enlightment" frees me to think of these gods as being more like Jupiter or Yahweh, rather than being some total fluke of the modern world. In fact, it's likely that they have ties to a particular place, just as Jupiter has ties to Rome and Yahweh has ties to both Israel and Rome. And there is also likely to be a particular man who is to the post-Enlightenment gods what Jesus is to Yahweh or Romulus is to the Roman gods. Even before switching labels, I realized that this man would be none other than Rene Descartes, the first Enlightenment thinker, whose influence on all subsequent thought cannot be underestimated.

But which place? Which place has been truly at the forefront of the events (especially the Enlightenment) that led to the modern world? Not America or England or Germany, though all of these are at least a little tempting. No, it's France. It's not just the birthplace of Descartes; it was where the most representative thinkers of the Enlightenment came from. I mean people along the lines of Rousseau, who distrusted society and yet thought the state could fix things. Or Montaigne, who helped ensure that skepticism kept its good name through the ages. France was also important in political affairs. The French Revolution was one of the first modern revolutions, and set up the modern rivalry between left-wing and right-wing politicians. And until World War II, France made a lot of difference in any kind military affair.

Remember that the whole concept came about because I didn't think any of the old gods would have been behind the events of modern (post-18th century) history. But at this point, that reasoning has come full circle. If the post-Enlightenment gods are associated with France, maybe they're not young gods less than a millenium old. Maybe they were around in pre-Christian times, and are in fact the same as the gods who were worshipped in the land that is now France. (I know the traditons of the modern French don't stretch back that far, but gods do last longer than humans. The old gods could still be associated with the French land where they were once worshipped.) The most important ancient inhabitants of what is now France were the Gauls, whose religion was Celtic. But a lot of them worshipped the Roman gods, and you can't discount the Germanic Franks. Still, the Celtic religion was the most important one in the land that is now France before the fifth century. Interestingly enough, the Celtic tradition also seems to be the most important one in modern Wicca, at least in the popular conception.

Anyway, I am loath to bring up the post-Enlightenment gods on this board, even though I think the problems it caused were almost entirely a result of the previous label for this pantheon. Still, I think this is an interesting question. How can I tell if the modern world is more heavily influenced by the Celtic gods than I previously thought? Also an issue is the fact that the modern world is undeniably unique, so how much of the "post-Enlightenment gods" paradigm do I need to keep in any case. (But that second question is one that I wouldn't trust to those who don't believe in gods. I'm not asking for input on that. )

So don't flame me. I warned you that this post would involve a strange phrase, and theories about non-revealed gods.

Heathen Dawn

It’s an interesting worldview, Ojuice. It shows that it is possible to view the world through “god-eyed glasses”. At any rate it sounds more consistent and encompassing than the Christian view, which has no good explanation of why God, the obvious, is not so obvious to many people at all.

But I, and I think most other people on this board, still view the world from the eyeglasses of naturalism and/or materialism:

“In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics, and the particles evolved to become complex stuff, and some of that stuff began to think and invented gods to explain the world”.

In that view, gods have no existence other than in the brains of humans. Take your pick; I think naturalism is more supported by evidence than is theism (whether mono- or poly-).

Just a question of utility: can I have any sort of interaction with the “post-Enlightenment gods” so as to persuade them to extend their reign over the Islamic countries ASAP? That would be a great thing of them to do. Until then, the only thing that would work to spread post-Enlightenment values to unenlightened places is human efforts.

liquid

well I won't flame you...

From what I have just skim-read, the name change for your pantheon was a good idea. 'atheist gods' makes no sense. post-enlightenment much better. It may well account for a flaming if you used the previous term on these boards! After all, while quite a 'unique' viewpoint, it is legitimate for this board.

As for your theory itself, I don't get convinced by a word of it, but I can see you are striving for some kind of consistency and progression at some level. And trying to think is one step further than a lot of fundybots I've met.

You win my interestingly unusual yet full of holes post of the day award.

Ojuice5001

Heathen Dawn,

Well, there is something. Remember that Descartes is tied up heavily in my ideas of the post-Enlightenment gods. As you may know, he thought that mind and matter interacted in one particular spot in the head--the pineal gland. And what does the pineal gland actually do? It produces melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep patterns and pigmentation. So perhaps melatonin is connected. I actually think it makes sense. After all, the people of northern Europe and Asia have relatively high levels of melatonin, and their lifestyle is more influenced by the goals of the post-Enlightenment gods (Sweden, England, Japan, China, etc.). Their southern neighbors in Latin America and India are more inclined to stick with the Christian and Hindu traditions.
In the same way, old people have less melatonin and are more religious and conservative than the young.

So if someone had higher levels of melatonin, that would aid the post-Enlightenment gods. Exposure to light is the main influence on melatonin production; the greater the exposure to light, the lower the level of melatonin. Or, if you don't want to do it naturally, melatonin supplements are a common medical practice to help people get to sleep. You can even get the stuff over the counter in the US.

wade-w

Ummm... no, you have it backwards. Greater exposure to sunlight generally leads to higher levels of melatonin, not lower. This is called a suntan. People of Northern European ancestry generally have very little melatonin. Especially those of us that have red hair and are prone to severe sunburn. People whose ancestors are from equatorial regions generally have very high levels of melatonin, which is why they have darker skin.

Ojuice5001

Wade-w,

From the Sleep Foundation

Melatonin is produced at night (that is, when light isn't affecting the body's sense organs). You are no doubt thinking of melanin , the pigment that darkens the skin and hair, which is inhibited by a high level of melatonin. When I have carefully read a description of the relations of the two, it shows that despite their similar names, they are inversely correlated.

wade-w

Ooops. This proves I shouldn't post when I'm not fully awake yet.