Perchance

But we know that even history is not always 100% accurate, that it can be viewed in different ways, that it can be stretched or distorted, and that arguments revolve around things like the motives of various leaders, kings, and rebels. Why do you trust religion as an accurate tablet of what the gods are thinking? How do you know that humans aren't screwing it up, or that gods had anything to do with it at all?

Again, it puzzles me how you can make statements that seem to be the result of direct knowledge, without saying where you got your knowledge. How do you know that there is "an essential multiplicity of the universe?" There may be, but how to go about proving it?

I've read different explanations for the reason that Jupiter didn't want to give fire to humans- they might misuse it, the gods didn't trust humans, humans weren't worthy of it, the gods were jealous of what humans might become. Again, there doesn't seem to be any way to receive knowledge of the minds of gods (let alone knowledge about the existence of these gods), so who's to say that the gods haven't persuaded humans they're inferior because they're scared of us and what we have the potential to become?


I could like a god who didn't want to coerce an individual's free will.

On the other hand, why should they want to come back at all if we're doing well? Can't they be content that we've changed so that we don't need them anymore?


Spiritual "needs" of any kind would depend on the existence of a spiritual dimension (long hypothesized, never proven), and then determining that spirituality is essential to human survival. It can't be, or no one would ever get along without it. And I'd like to say that I'm another human who gets along without it just fine.

-Perchance.

Perchance

Hi Heathen Dawn,

I have no problem with people wanting to worship or celebrate or perform rituals in honor of nature. I was just asking a question about something I didn't understand.

I think natural things are very beautiful; I love the stars and moon and sun, and I would much rather look at a tree than a machine. On the other hand, some of the modern neopagan philosophy seems focused on ignoring the "dark side" of nature. Animals hunt and kill each other. Random disasters (not random in the sense they don't have a cause, random in the sense that they don't happen because of some great overarching human or divine purpose) destroy people and their homes, and animals too. Forest fires not of human making burn trees. Volcanoes belch pollution into the air. Diseases kill people who did nothing deliberately to contract them. Species die out. Someday a comet may slam into the planet and kill us all.

All of these things are natural.

I don't think it's possible for me to give unqualified appreciation or worship to nature. I certainly don't think it's accountable to human-derived standards of morality. On the other hand, I certainly don't think that it cares about us in any way, or that we are compelled to honor it.

-Perchance.

Ojuice5001

I have Asperger syndrome. This is an inborn condition that interferes with both the desire and the ability to socialize. I don't have friends of the kind most people have, and I don't generally feel I have a need for friends. Now, let's assume I really don't need friends (if we assume I do, the analogy is favors my position more). This does not mean that other people don't need friends (in the relevant sense). In the same way, I can grant that someone who claims not to need to interact with the gods, really doesn't, and still maintain that humans in general do need the gods, and that that favors their existence.

And while we're comparing divinity and friendship, here's a cool quote (forget the author, but the book is called You Are Worthless):

Edit: Daemon, I've got your source. There are two studies, one by Arlgyle, and one by Poloma and Pendleton. Those names just footnotes in my psychology textbook.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

Perchance

Hi Ojuice5001,

I think that people can feel they need the gods (in the same way that people can feel they need sex). What I was objecting to was:

1) Your original blanket statement of:

This seems to be a generalization- that all individuals need the gods, and those who don't fulfill it are less well off than those who do.

and

2) The use of the word "need" in the context I thought you were using it: that is, as something necessary to continued human survival, like a biological need. I often hear the word "need" applied in this way to both sex and religion, as if they were as essential to humanity as air, water, and food.

By definition, they can't be, because there are people who live without them. There are people who live without religion- in fact, who live quite happily without it, casting the statement that they're better off "fulfilling the need" than "ignoring it" in doubt. And there are people who remain celibate or chaste and don't die from it, or who don't have sex as often as others and don't die from it, and are very happy.

I happen to belong to both of these categories: non-believing and likely to remain so, and celibate and likely to remain so. I am actually one of the happiest people I know. (I also don't seem to have a need for friendship, by coincidence ).

If you were using the word "need" in another context, I apologize. Could you clarify this for me, please?

I suppose it is possible to posit that humans are born with different requirements, that just as some people need more food than others some need more sex or religion than others. But there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence for this.

Again, I would need evidence that:

a) gods existed,
b) a spiritual plane existed,
c) these two things somehow influenced me having spiritual needs (after all, it's possible that spiritual needs not dependent on gods could exist),
and
d) that my quality of life would be improved by accepting the gods and acknowledging my spiritual needs.

I would say that my qualifications for quality of life improvement rest on it giving me greater pleasure and joy. I wouldn't mind rigorous religious devotions if they pleased me in the way that, say, reading or listening to music does. But, instead, the very idea is foreign to me. I have no idea how I would go about integrating these activities into my life, and no idea why I would want to, and both these states of mind have endured for a long time.

This got longer than I meant it to. But I hope I have clarified my objections to the idea of spiritual needs.

-Perchance.

Ojuice5001

I think what I meant by "need" was "if deprived of X, one feels that something important is missing from life." By this definition, most people need sex, friendship, free time and money, etc. Now that I have clarified that in my own mind, I basically think that I may have overstated the case. I think the percentage of people who "need" spirituality in this sense could be as low as 40% or as high as 65%.

Ojuice5001

Daemon,

Why do you think they want us to worship them? Do you think it's because they have big egos, or because they think allowing themselves to be worshipped is a favor? I don't. I think they derive practical benefits from being worshipped. My main reasoning is that explanations like those two seem implausible.

Think in terms of design space. By this point, society is far in design space from, say, the OP's stage 2. And to change society from the outside without damaging it, you must change it to something close to it in design space. Thus, it is not too surprising that this hasn't happend yet.

This is only a guess, of course. I say only that it is a good guess.

Well, knowing that the gods are both just protectors of Rome, and a bunch of impulsive hedonists, I think they compartmentalize their lives. The Roman gods have large-scale plans that are based on justice, and short-term impulses that are capricious but affect only a few people. You have to remember that the Romans wouldn't have worshipped Jupiter if the side portrayed in most myths were his only side.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

Heathen Dawn

I don't believe in anything you don't believe; I'm a metaphysical naturalist, and as such I disbelieve that there is any Lord over the universe, for good or bad. I know full well Nature may dispose of me the next day, but that doesn't stop me worshipping. Worship of nature, unlike worship of God, isn't utilitarian: you're not promised well-being if you do it, or punishment if you don't. I worship nature because I have an inner inclination to do so, not because of any system of reward and punishment.

Just the thought of it:

Nature is the Creation
and also the Creator

drives me to worship. The idea we have a creator, but it is not external to us, but rather inherent, immanent in us, is the basis for my nature worship. The idea that matter organized itself into beings like us is most stupendous. I understand those who are not inclined to worship; but I am inclined to do it. What I don't like about atheism is the "a-" in it - the negation. After some time being an atheist, I said to myself, "atheism isn't a religion, and I need a religion. How can I make a religion without believing in the irrational?". So I based my religion on the core philosophy behind atheism - naturalism, from which nature worship followed.

Perchance

Well, I'm glad that you clarified it. I think I understand a bit better now, and it actually relates to the statements I made above about quality of life. There are many things in my life that are not strictly necessary (like fantasy novels), but which I enjoy. If I find out that something adds to my quality of life and does not significantly cut down on those things that need to be done (for example, I would consider carefully before picking an expensive hobby since it might cut into money I need to spend on groceries), then I will probably add it. But so far, nothing I've found in religion has proven to add to my quality of life. I do enjoy reading mythology, and would probably feel as if I were depriving myself of something if I did not read it, but nothing in it compels me to belief; nothing about my enjoyment of it is different than the enjoyment of fantasy novels.

Regarding the percentage (bet you knew I was going to ask ), what made you choose those particular numbers?

-Perchance.

Perchance

Hi Heathen Dawn,

Certainly, if you have an inclination to worship nature, and it doesn't harm anyone, by all means do it! At least you know what you want to do and why. Few people can say that about most of their lives.

I suppose what puzzles me (and this is also related to what I'm posting back to Ojuice5001) is the need for religion (and, tangentially, why you refer to yourself as a religious man). I'm not sure what it offers that other things don't. Ceremony or drama? I find those almost everywhere in life. Joy? I find that in the things I like to do and the people I associate with. Protection from negativism? I think that that's something only an individual human mind can provide, since everyone will be depressed or angered by different things.

I suppose I'm in the position of making a good run at comprehension, and just not "getting it." I don't doubt that religion provides something essential (or something others see as essential) for some people; I just don't really understand what.

-Perchance.

Ojuice5001

Well, I figure about 20% of Americans are devout conservative Christians, and at least as many others are devout believers in something else (including liberal Christianity). And 65% is about as high as I can go without running afoul of the fact that there are not only numerous contented atheists, there are also a much larger number of theists who, seemingly, would be just as content if they were atheists.