Atheist's preferred gods.

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Sure, he was certainly against western organised religion, and agnostic with regard personal Gods. I wouldn't describe it as eastern philosophy, either, but merely a personal philosophy with elements of agnosticism, deism, Panentheism etc.

Firstly he wasn't ''agnostic'' with regard a personal God (or gods) at all, unless ''I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly'' somehow translate into that.

Secondly, part of one of his quote included..''The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.''

In Buddism, ''the self'' is characterised by these five situations...

1. Physical form: our physical bodies
2. Sensation: the five senses plus our emotions
3. Perception: thinking, conceptualizing, reasoning, etc.
4. Mental formations: thinking habits, biases, willfulness, intention, desire, etc.
5. Consciousness: awareness

He say's in another quote...''The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)''

Ask yourself this question... what is there beyond this concept of the self?

And who better to tell us what he thought than his own words:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one...''

This is no big revelation, I myself from such a viewpoint am an atheist. I am an atheist from a jewish, christian, and muslim point of view also. Plus I have made comments which allude to the notion that institutionalised religious organisations are not God-centered. That is obvious to anyone who even remotely studies scriptures.

...You may call me agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." - Albert Einstein, from "Skeptic" vol.5, no.2, 1997.

He didn't refer to his position as ''agnostic'', he clearly would prefer to be labelled ''agnostic'' than ''professional atheist'' (great term). Rather than thunder about claiming God does not exist, or atheists are smart, and theists are stupid, or asking for evidence of something which is ''impenatrable'' by our human limitations. He prefers humility, accepting that there are weaknesses to our comprehension of who and what we are. That is different to saying ''we don't know'', a flat out agnostic position, but better to be labelled as that, than to called an atheist.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoble meant of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." - Albert Einstein, from a letter to M. Berkowitz, 1950.

I've read this letter and I find it to be vague. At the end of it he wrote...

''I am sending you under separate cover, two books of mine containing occasional writings where you will find more about this subject'' What were those books?

This seems like a specific response to an ongoing dialogue which may well include the idea that morals are something which come from God.

"I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

I don't see why you included this quote as it doesn't help your case. The terms ''My God'' (upper-case), ''created'', and ''His'', all lead to theism (belief in God)

He was not an atheist (in as much as he saw an atheist as someone who argued God does not exist, rather than the broader sense), and was fascinated by Spinoza's God... which has been called "Classical pantheism" or even "Panentheism".

Obviously ''Spinoza's'' ideas of God would appeal to Einstein, because he was a scientist through and through, not just professional one. But he had his own idea of who and what God was and wasn't.

From what I have read he did believe that there was a creator, that this god created the universal laws, but that god is so far beyond our understanding that he (Einstein) satisfied himself with just trying to unravel even a part of the mysteries presented within/by our universe.

He was a theist. He believed in God.
What more is there to say? :shrug:

He also disliked being quoted by atheists (those who believed in the non-existence of god) as somehow supporting their position.

He never spoke of Charles Darwin, or his theory of evolution. Why was that?

He was almost certainly agnostic beyond there actually being a god (which I would think he saw the universe itself as evidence of).
Perhaps a deist.
Beyond that I'm not sure he had any clear, defined notion.

He expressed himself exactly in how he saw it (my opinion), and in that way would express belief, un-belief, and agnosticism. Even Jesus asked why God had forsaken him, mother Teresa also expressed doubt at certain points. This is natural as there are no certainties (which is why Einstein regarded the idea of a personal God, one which interferes and tinkers with our personal lives, as childish notions).

Theism is very real. It is not some kind of club for like-minded people.

At least that's how i see his views.
If you want to see this as being eastern philosophy, feel free.

It appears that western philosophy is greek philosophy, so ultimately everything is eastern philosophy at it's very core. But eastern philosophy lies at the heart of his philosophy (as I pointed out earlier).

jan.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I'd go with Priapus, but that may not work for anybody else.

Holy crap!

In Greek mythology, Priapus or Priapos (Ancient Greek: Πρίαπος), was a minor rustic fertility god, protector of livestock, fruit plants, gardens and male genitalia. Priapus is marked by his absurdly oversized, permanent erection

Dang...homeboy doesn't just have a "baby's arm"...he's got a full-size man arm. He could hang that shit over his shoulder.

 

[Sorcerer]

Holy crap!

Dang...homeboy doesn't just have a "baby's arm"...he's got a full-size man arm. He could hang that shit over his shoulder.

Brilliant, Mac.

 

[wynn]

In Buddism, ''the self'' is characterised by these five situations...

1. Physical form: our physical bodies
2. Sensation: the five senses plus our emotions
3. Perception: thinking, conceptualizing, reasoning, etc.
4. Mental formations: thinking habits, biases, willfulness, intention, desire, etc.
5. Consciousness: awareness

Do provide an actual quote from the Pali Canon for this.
Ha ha, I dare you!

He say's in another quote...''The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)''

Not at all.
It's just that Buddhism, and some Buddhists, wouldn't fight back the way some other people do.
Besides, Buddhism and "modern scientific needs" are totally at odds, given the Buddhist categorical focus on what one can realize for oneself, as opposed to the scientific waiting for someone else to figure things out or approve of them.

He was a theist. He believed in God.
What more is there to say?

There is to say that not anything goes.

It is not some kind of club for like-minded people.

Of course it is a country club. It's extremely elitist and exclusivist. That's not necessarily bad, but we do need to be realistic and not promulgate the appearance that all is well and that just anyone gets to believe in God. Because not everyone gets to believe in God.

Who believes in the ''...Greek/Roman gods of Olympus: Zeus, Pluto, Appollo...''?
Show me any religion that believes in these gods?
Why would anyone cite these as gods that atheists believe in, or prefer?

Ever heard of "demigod worship"?

It seems to me like some folk completely ignore and project what they want without any respect for actual subject matter, and I think this thread is guilty of that. It gives the impression that everything is just down to personal preference, and takes for granted the feet under the table culture, that it's just one big joke.

A.k.a. demigod worship.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Who believes in the ''...Greek/Roman gods of Olympus: Zeus, Pluto, Appollo...''?
Show me any religion that believes in these gods?
Why would anyone cite these as gods that atheists believe in, or prefer?

Ever heard of "demigod worship"?

Yes I have, but you haven't answered the questions.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

...Firstly he wasn't ''agnostic'' with regard a personal God (or gods) at all, unless ''I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly'' somehow translate into that....

Yeah, actually, it does.

 

[Franklin]

So speaking to the various characters like Abraham, Noah, Cain, Joshua, David etc is not a sign of anything supernatural??

No, it signifies an allegorical way of expressing ideas.

 

[Sarkus]

No, it signifies an allegorical way of expressing ideas.

And the entire bible could be taken that way, of course, including the very idea of a god.
Which would sort of go against you saying you "strictly follow" the OT... when you get to cherry pick which parts are followed to the letter, and which are merely deemed "allegorical".

So you do not believe that God has ever communicated to an individual?
Or do you feel that he has done so in a way entirely consistent with the laws of physics (i.e. nature).
Do you not believe in the actual miracles described throughout the OT?
Or are these all consistent with the laws of physics?

Or maybe you have a different view of what is meant by "supernatural".

 

[Franklin]

And the entire bible could be taken that way, of course, including the very idea of a god.
Which would sort of go against you saying you "strictly follow" the OT... when you get to cherry pick which parts are followed to the letter, and which are merely deemed "allegorical".

There is no conflict. The Old Testament is about how to behave, not what to believe.

So you do not believe that God has ever communicated to an individual?

Only in an indirect sense, like Nature communicated the idea of gravity to Newton by dropping an apple in front of him.

Do you not believe in the actual miracles described throughout the OT?

I do not believe in miracles. Most of the "miracles" in the Old Testament have reasonable natural explanation. When the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, it could have been low tide or maybe it was just a swamp and the Egyptians got stuck. And Mount Sinai sounds an awful lot like an active volcano.

I explained my view of God in detail here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?137032-God-for-Skeptics

 

[Sarkus]

There is no conflict. The Old Testament is about how to behave, not what to believe.


Only in an indirect sense, like Nature communicated the idea of gravity to Newton by dropping an apple in front of him.


I do not believe in miracles. Most of the "miracles" in the Old Testament have reasonable natural explanation. When the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, it could have been low tide or maybe it was just a swamp and the Egyptians got stuck. And Mount Sinai sounds an awful lot like an active volcano.

I explained my view of God in detail here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?137032-God-for-Skeptics

Yes, you have defined god as natural law, which I consider utterly redundant as a definition, as we have an adequate phrase for it already: "natural law".
I don't deny the bible can offer people a guide as to how to live one's life, that one can abdicate one's morality to whatever they deem appropriate, but as soon as they alter any interpretation of a passage to fit their current situation, they no longer use it as such but instead, as I would argue, use their own sense of morality, which they then justify to themselves through their new interpretation.
Which I consider to at least be better than absolute abdication for one's morals.

So you're actually a pantheist, then? But use the OT to justify your morals, as a guide book?

 

[Franklin]

Yes, you have defined god as natural law, which I consider utterly redundant as a definition, as we have an adequate phrase for it already: "natural law".

Yes we have an adequate phrase for it, but the Ancient Hebrews didn't, so they called it Yehova. For reasons not worth explaining, Rabbinic Jews renamed Yehova to Adonai which is translated into English as Lord or God. I am just returning to the original meaning.

I don't deny the bible can offer people a guide as to how to live one's life, that one can abdicate one's morality to whatever they deem appropriate, but as soon as they alter any interpretation of a passage to fit their current situation, they no longer use it as such but instead, as I would argue, use their own sense of morality, which they then justify to themselves through their new interpretation.
Which I consider to at least be better than absolute abdication for one's morals.

You miss the entire point of morality. Morality is an evolutionary adaptation to strengthen tribes in tribal competition. This means that morality has no point outside the context of a tribe. Morality only has a purpose when it is shared inside a tribe. This means that personal morality is mostly meaningless. The only meaning of personal morality is to find the tribal morality that is closest to one's personal preference, and my case this is the morality of the Old Testament. I adhere to rules of the Old Testament that have no basis in my personal morality for the simple reason that I want to belong to a tribe of people who are willing to adhere to the Old Testament.

So you're actually a pantheist, then? But use the OT to justify your morals, as a guide book?

I am not a pantheist. The problem with pantheism is that it defines the whole universe as God, and this destroys the distinction between cause and effect. In the Old Testament, God is cause not effect. The distinction between cause and effect is required to support morality.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes we have an adequate phrase for it, but the Ancient Hebrews didn't, so they called it Yehova. For reasons not worth explaining, Rabbinic Jews renamed Yehova to Adonai which is translated into English as Lord or God. I am just returning to the original meaning.

Except they got it all wrong. They thought every little thing was a sign of God's approval or disapproval, including locusts and bear attacks. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yes we have an adequate phrase for it, but the Ancient Hebrews didn't, so they called it Yehova. For reasons not worth explaining, Rabbinic Jews renamed Yehova to Adonai which is translated into English as Lord or God.

The conventional translation for YHWH is Yahweh. In Gen 1:1 YHWH does not yet exist, having preserved the plurality (godhead) that was called the Elohim. As you probably know Hebrew fell into disuse after Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East and Aramaic took its place as the native tongue, while Greek rose in Judaea as the preferred written language. Since YHWH was the "unutterable" name "I AM", naming God would have been problematic for them; hence the need for alternatives like "Lord".

You miss the entire point of morality. Morality is an evolutionary adaptation to strengthen tribes in tribal competition. This means that morality has no point outside the context of a tribe. Morality only has a purpose when it is shared inside a tribe. This means that personal morality is mostly meaningless. The only meaning of personal morality is to find the tribal morality that is closest to one's personal preference, and my case this is the morality of the Old Testament. I adhere to rules of the Old Testament that have no basis in my personal morality for the simple reason that I want to belong to a tribe of people who are willing to adhere to the Old Testament.

You seem to attach special significance to tribal identification. Most folks would shy from that, fearing the worst of ethical conduct that stems from such identification. Some things that come to mind are "group think", "mob rule" and vigilantism. On the flip side we tend to romanticize tribal life, especially in the context of primitive people living in idyllic villages nearly in perfect harmony with nature. But the typical outsider to your religion would associate what you are calling morality as taboos. In some primitive tribe that was filmed (something I recently watched) the anthropologist who discovered them was a highly skilled linguist who set out to decipher their language. It turned out that these were incredibly ethical people who had no word for "mine" or "theft". Without a doubt the villages of ancient Canaan where Judaic culture arose were not primitive in this same sense. They were highly sensitized by the warfare going on all around them, and hence they express morbid dread of the superpowers - esp. Egypt, Babylon, Assyria. While this is understandable to the immediate victims of atrocity, the lingering grudge for centuries that those races were inherently evil infused a traditional xenophobia into early Judaic culture which in part lends to the adverse kind of tribal identification I am alluding to. In short, these are the biological defense mechanisms of a herd, not something to be enshrined as virtues. (That's not to say that they didn't spend considerable effort trying to define virtue, and of course they were severely victimized throughout Christendom, esp during the Holocaust). Examples of taboos include dietary restrictions. It just leaves the religious outsiders scratching their heads wondering how any of this definition of morality applies in the modern world. In the retrospective we can find massive doses of "morals" from the morality plays of antiquity. Antigone comes to mind, probably since it was my first introduction into that genre. It removes the need for the very rambling and disconnected narratives of the Old Testament, and places the characters as clearly fictional people, but who resemble us ourselves, or people we know, in ethical questions of crucial importance we face every day. Indeed the Greeks began as "tribes" of city-states who were mortal enemies at cross purposes until Alexander organized and unified them into superpower status. And for whatever kinds of barbarities they practiced, they did indeed evolve all of the practical basis for ethical conduct that tamed the world and give rise to countless movements (usu Neo-Platonism) that either constantly strove to soften the religious severity of the ages (as in European history) and/or to give rise to cultural revolutions like the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, which made great strides in improving the adoption of ethical policies (as in abolishing slavery) that religions such as yours were never successful in accomplishing. That leaves me to the idea that there is indeed a "tribe" of "better people" who perpetuate ethical conduct, but they probably have little or no connection to Old Testament or any other document held to be sacred.

I am not a pantheist. The problem with pantheism is that it defines the whole universe as God, and this destroys the distinction between cause and effect. In the Old Testament, God is cause not effect. The distinction between cause and effect is required to support morality.

That's probably the best way to distinguish the purely religious word "moral" from the more general word "ethics". Fortunately ethics has no basis in cosmology, so ethical people are free to behave decently regardless of whether or not the universe created itself in a Big Bang. Incidentally, you may be aware that the precursors to Judaism were pantheons, probably borrowed from the older culture identified with the site at Ugarit. This is most likely the source of Judaism and the reason Gen 1:1 speaks of the Elohim ("in our image we created them.") This is different than pantheism, but the more appropriate way to describe early Israelites is that they were polytheists. Contrary to what may folks think about those people, they were evidently practicing polytheism fairly late in this early era, as now known by the discovery that homes from that early period contained statuettes of the fabled wife of Yahweh (also borrowed from Ugaritic and other cultures) the goddess Asherah.

It's funny you mention cause and effect since the prize for this goes to a Greek, Aristotle, with his explanation of a "Prime Mover". Since Judeo-Christian theology is rooted in Mesopotamian precursors, the late Canaanite/early Israelite cultures borrowed heavily from them, as in the flood myth, and the Code of Hammurabi (eye for eye, tooth for tooth). Those same folks believed that the universe was formed out of the scattered body parts of the slain mother-dragon Tiamat during a primordial battle among the gods. The more likely source for modern patheism is animism (for indigenous cultures long since gone) which comes from the belief that all things in nature possess a supernatural persona or power which ultimately determine the fate of all humans. Of course this is the truest of explanations, especially if we just substitute "natural" for "supernatural " causes.

 

[Hapsburg]

Dionysus/Bachanales (spelling?) The god of wine, parties and general fun. That's the kind of god you need, not all those miserable, vindictive ones.

Bacchus and Dionysos are very different, though. Dionysos, originally, is not merely the god of wine and revelry, but also of liberation and freedom. The circumstances of his birth and his far-ranging travels show him to be almost like the Greek heroes: quasi-human liminal figures, straddling the boundaries of what is and is not socially acceptable (and the boundaries between mortality and immortality), yet providing important lessons or teachings. Arguably his most important role is as the liberator, from social controls and mental controls alike.
The Roman interpretation of him, applied upon their own god of vegetation, is normally called Bacchus and he lacks that important aspect. The Roman Bacchus is largely a god of wine and viticulture. The mind-altering and liberation parts are separated and attributed to Liber, an entirely separate god. The Roman way of viewing the Greek gods is significantly different than their original forms.

Further, Greek mythology definitely shows Dionysos' vindictive side.


PS) I see quite often that atheists "prefer" the concept of the polytheistic gods of antiquity. They find them interesting, and are generally friendly towards those who are reviving the veneration of said deities. It seems to me that they are reacting against the dominant monotheism in their society, rather than all kinds of theism.
I used to be an atheist. But I was raised in it, not pushed towards it as a reaction. I suppose that's why I was open-minded enough to look into polytheism. Which led me to where I am now, I suppose.

 

[Franklin]

The conventional translation for YHWH is Yahweh. In Gen 1:1 YHWH does not yet exist, having preserved the plurality (godhead) that was called the Elohim. As you probably know Hebrew fell into disuse after Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East and Aramaic took its place as the native tongue, while Greek rose in Judaea as the preferred written language. Since YHWH was the "unutterable" name "I AM", naming God would have been problematic for them; hence the need for alternatives like "Lord".

I don't know the real pronunciation of YHWH, and no one does. I just pronounce it as it makes sense in Hebrew based on the vowels used now. The idea that YHWH is "unutterable" is just one of the many ways that modern Judaism distorts the Torah. Exodus 3:15 properly translated says:

And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Yehova, God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.

You seem to attach special significance to tribal identification. Most folks would shy from that, fearing the worst of ethical conduct that stems from such identification. Some things that come to mind are "group think", "mob rule" and vigilantism.

I view Modernism (modern culture) as its own tribe. It is a big extended tribe that denies its own tribal identity, but then hypocrisy is one of its foremost traits. It is plagued by group think and mob rule to a greater extent than most other cultures.

On the flip side we tend to romanticize tribal life, especially in the context of primitive people living in idyllic villages nearly in perfect harmony with nature. But the typical outsider to your religion would associate what you are calling morality as taboos.

I don't romanticize primitive life. I have nothing against modern technology. I agree that different moralities conflict, and I see no problem with that.

Without a doubt the villages of ancient Canaan where Judaic culture arose were not primitive in this same sense. They were highly sensitized by the warfare going on all around them, and hence they express morbid dread of the superpowers - esp. Egypt, Babylon, Assyria.

Without a doubt? We have little idea what ancient Canaan was really like. My comments are based on ancient Canaan as portrayed in the Bible, whether or not this is historically accurate. And in the Bible, ancient Canaan is portrayed as a decadent culture.

While this is understandable to the immediate victims of atrocity, the lingering grudge for centuries that those races were inherently evil infused a traditional xenophobia into early Judaic culture which in part lends to the adverse kind of tribal identification I am alluding to. In short, these are the biological defense mechanisms of a herd, not something to be enshrined as virtues. (That's not to say that they didn't spend considerable effort trying to define virtue, and of course they were severely victimized throughout Christendom, esp during the Holocaust).

Here you mix up many things. First, racism is a modern concept. The Hebrew Bible is tribal, not racist. The difference is that a tribe is a group of people living together who share a common culture. This is not based on race. I can prove this with biblical references if you are interested. Judaism became racist under Roman pressure, and has remained racist contrary to the Torah. I blame the Holocaust mostly on the rabbis who violated the Torah commandments to cut off from Israel those who don't follow the basic rules (the sabbath and passover). Hitler was surrounded by liberal "Jews" who practiced Liberalism, not Judaism. Hitler rightly hated these people, and since Hitler was racist, he grouped all Jews together in his mind. The liberal "Jews" well deserved to be exterminated, not because they were Jews but because they were Liberals. If the rabbis had obeyed the Torah and cut these people off from Judaism, there would have been no Holocaust against the Jews. The irony here is that Judaism was punished for racism and still hasn't learned the lesson to obey the Torah and not be racist.

Examples of taboos include dietary restrictions. It just leaves the religious outsiders scratching their heads wondering how any of this definition of morality applies in the modern world.

Unfortunately modern Judaism has little to do with the intent of the Torah. The dietary restrictions were health codes, and the idea of avoiding unhealthy food is more applicable to the modern world than ever before.

In the retrospective we can find massive doses of "morals" from the morality plays of antiquity. Antigone comes to mind, probably since it was my first introduction into that genre. It removes the need for the very rambling and disconnected narratives of the Old Testament, and places the characters as clearly fictional people, but who resemble us ourselves, or people we know, in ethical questions of crucial importance we face every day. Indeed the Greeks began as "tribes" of city-states who were mortal enemies at cross purposes until Alexander organized and unified them into superpower status. And for whatever kinds of barbarities they practiced, they did indeed evolve all of the practical basis for ethical conduct that tamed the world and give rise to countless movements (usu Neo-Platonism) that either constantly strove to soften the religious severity of the ages (as in European history) and/or to give rise to cultural revolutions like the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, which made great strides in improving the adoption of ethical policies (as in abolishing slavery) that religions such as yours were never successful in accomplishing. That leaves me to the idea that there is indeed a "tribe" of "better people" who perpetuate ethical conduct, but they probably have little or no connection to Old Testament or any other document held to be sacred.

I admire Ancient Athenian culture and I like Sophocles, but the bottom line is that Hebrew culture survived but Greek culture didn't. The Greeks had their gods, and while they respected their gods, they were strong. In Athens, they became "modern" and lost respect for their gods, and they suffered the consequences. Alexander came from the periphery of the Greek world that hadn't suffered as much from decay. But the empire he created generated a bunch of decadent philosophical schools of thought. In the end, Greek culture was absorbed by the Romans and then merged with Hebrew culture to form Christianity which is what we have today. If Greek culture hadn't combined with Hebrew culture (in Christianity), it wouldn't have survived at all. The Renaissance and Enlightenment are direct products of Christianity which depends on both influences.

For moral purposes, it is useful to blur fact and fiction in moral stories. Many people take moral stories less seriously if they know that the story is fiction. The Hebrew Bible recognizes this and is optimized for moral effect.

That's probably the best way to distinguish the purely religious word "moral" from the more general word "ethics". Fortunately ethics has no basis in cosmology, so ethical people are free to behave decently regardless of whether or not the universe created itself in a Big Bang.

Except that most people don't. As primates similar to chimpanzees, humans tend to be organized into tribes dominated by an alpha-male and humans tend to submit to the authority of the alpha-male. Without respect for such an authority, people tend to behave immorally. In small tribes, the tribe can elect a man for this role. But in larger cultures, this just doesn't work. Having a masculine god who represents morality and can fill the role of alpha-male is the best solution. And having this god create the universe is a good way to show his power and that he deserves respect.

Incidentally, you may be aware that the precursors to Judaism were pantheons, probably borrowed from the older culture identified with the site at Ugarit. This is most likely the source of Judaism and the reason Gen 1:1 speaks of the Elohim ("in our image we created them.") This is different than pantheism, but the more appropriate way to describe early Israelites is that they were polytheists. Contrary to what may folks think about those people, they were evidently practicing polytheism fairly late in this early era, as now known by the discovery that homes from that early period contained statuettes of the fabled wife of Yahweh (also borrowed from Ugaritic and other cultures) the goddess Asherah.

As far as I am concerned, Moses invented Judaism. Moses probably wasn't an Israelite and he probably got his ideas from the Egyptian god Aten. What the Israelites believed before Moses is irrelevant to me. Moses reworked their myths to fit into his new religion and this is the basis of Genesis.

It's funny you mention cause and effect since the prize for this goes to a Greek, Aristotle, with his explanation of a "Prime Mover". Since Judeo-Christian theology is rooted in Mesopotamian precursors, the late Canaanite/early Israelite cultures borrowed heavily from them, as in the flood myth, and the Code of Hammurabi (eye for eye, tooth for tooth). Those same folks believed that the universe was formed out of the scattered body parts of the slain mother-dragon Tiamat during a primordial battle among the gods. The more likely source for modern patheism is animism (for indigenous cultures long since gone) which comes from the belief that all things in nature possess a supernatural persona or power which ultimately determine the fate of all humans. Of course this is the truest of explanations, especially if we just substitute "natural" for "supernatural " causes.

The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that God is one. Animism is not monotheistic. God is one means that there should be one morality (for each tribe) and one scientific truth.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes we have an adequate phrase for it, but the Ancient Hebrews didn't, so they called it Yehova. For reasons not worth explaining, Rabbinic Jews renamed Yehova to Adonai which is translated into English as Lord or God. I am just returning to the original meaning.

And are you anything to the current phrase "natural law" by doing so?
If not, why encumber yourself with the baggage.
If you are: what?

You miss the entire point of morality. Morality is an evolutionary adaptation to strengthen tribes in tribal competition. This means that morality has no point outside the context of a tribe. Morality only has a purpose when it is shared inside a tribe. This means that personal morality is mostly meaningless. The only meaning of personal morality is to find the tribal morality that is closest to one's personal preference, and my case this is the morality of the Old Testament. I adhere to rules of the Old Testament that have no basis in my personal morality for the simple reason that I want to belong to a tribe of people who are willing to adhere to the Old Testament.

No, I don't miss the entire point of morality. I was merely invoking how most people who adhere to the OT do see morality - as given by God, set out in the OT, and to be adhered to (often to the letter) - perhaps for no other reason than because they believe in God, fear God etc.
That you are different to this speaks for you, but don't confuse my comments for "missing the entire point of morality". I actually see it fairly similarly to you.

I am not a pantheist. The problem with pantheism is that it defines the whole universe as God, and this destroys the distinction between cause and effect. In the Old Testament, God is cause not effect. The distinction between cause and effect is required to support morality.

Why does it destroy the distinction? Because God as universe is all of the past, present and future? But who is to say we have anything but a semblance/illusion of choice, freedom, freewill, and that the universe is not entirely a mix of determinism or randomness (probabilistic determinism etc)? In which case the cause = the effect, or at least every possible effect.

 

[Franklin]

And are you anything to the current phrase "natural law" by doing so?
If not, why encumber yourself with the baggage.
If you are: what?

I think you are asking if God means more than natural law. The answer is yes, God should also occupy the position of alpha-male for the religion. Humans are primates who naturally organize into groups around an alpha-male, so it is critical that this function is filled in a reasonable way. Societies without alpha-male gods inevitably devolve into tyranny when a man fills this role. For God to fill this role, he/it needs to be personified in a masculine way and people need to express submission to God. The most natural way for humans (and chimps) to express submission is by bowing, so people should go to religious service and bow before God weekly. The group I plan to join, Karaite Jews, bow to God in a way similar to Muslims, so I am happy with this.

No, I don't miss the entire point of morality. I was merely invoking how most people who adhere to the OT do see morality - as given by God, set out in the OT, and to be adhered to (often to the letter) - perhaps for no other reason than because they believe in God, fear God etc.

For people of low intelligence, this is the best approach.

Why does it destroy the distinction? Because God as universe is all of the past, present and future? But who is to say we have anything but a semblance/illusion of choice, freedom, freewill, and that the universe is not entirely a mix of determinism or randomness (probabilistic determinism etc)? In which case the cause = the effect, or at least every possible effect.

The idea of cause and effect is a mindset, a way of looking at the world. Science itself is based on this mindset. We think of the laws of science as causing the behavior of our world. A culture not based on cause and effect could not develop science because it wouldn't look for causal laws. It is the same with morality. Morality depends on the idea that there are some abstract moral laws that cause negative consequences of bad behavior, either in this world or in some mythological afterlife. Without this idea, morality breaks down.

 

[Syne]

Mod note

Here you mix up many things. First, racism is a modern concept. The Hebrew Bible is tribal, not racist. The difference is that a tribe is a group of people living together who share a common culture. This is not based on race. I can prove this with biblical references if you are interested. Judaism became racist under Roman pressure, and has remained racist contrary to the Torah. I blame the Holocaust mostly on the rabbis who violated the Torah commandments to cut off from Israel those who don't follow the basic rules (the sabbath and passover). Hitler was surrounded by liberal "Jews" who practiced Liberalism, not Judaism. Hitler rightly hated these people, and since Hitler was racist, he grouped all Jews together in his mind. The liberal "Jews" well deserved to be exterminated, not because they were Jews but because they were Liberals. If the rabbis had obeyed the Torah and cut these people off from Judaism, there would have been no Holocaust against the Jews. The irony here is that Judaism was punished for racism and still hasn't learned the lesson to obey the Torah and not be racist.

Even against "Liberals", hate speech will not be tolerated.

 

[Franklin]

Even against "Liberals", hate speech will not be tolerated.

Just go ahead and ban me. I have been banned from all other forums that are part of Modern culture. I know that Modern culture is the most intolerant culture on earth.

 

[Capracus]

Liberals will claim that adultery is a private issue between consenting adults and the government has no business being involved. This is a lie on many levels. First of all, Liberals dictate the terms of marriage and divorce and do not give couples the freedom to marry under a private contract of their own choosing. Such a contract could well punish adultery. Second, virtually all civilized rising cultures allowed the harmed husband to take revenge. Usually the husband was permitted to kill the guilty man and to throw the wife out with nothing. This was the case in early America and in Ancient Athens. The Liberals prevent this through government regulation, not allowing the husband to take revenge. This is anti-freedom. The Liberals will say that the freedom to murder isn't a legitimate freedom. Most would agree that to murder in self defense is fine. Who is to say when murder is legitimate?
http://www.biblicjudaism.org/Liberalism-td105.html

So your woman ran off with some liberal and you need a defense when they find the bodies.

The beliefs and history of Liberalism are new, but Liberal values are very old. There have been many religions based on decadence and selfishness. The Bible contains an example in the worship of Baal. Liberals are the modern equivalent of Baal worshippers. Baal worshippers had the same decadence, promiscuity, and selfishness. Everything that the Bible says about Baal worshipper should be applied to today's Liberals. In particular, God repeatedly tells the Israelites not to mix with Baal worshippers because this would corrupt the Israelites. This applies today as well. No decent culture can survive mixing with Liberal culture which inevitably leads to corruption. Those religions which fail to sufficiently separate themselves from Liberal culture have no future. The religions that separate themselves well today include Anabaptist Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and Islam. A nice movie which shows how Orthodox Judaism and Islam do this is Arranged.
http://www.biblicjudaism.org/Liberalism-td105.html

Where’s the example of any of these ideal traditional cultures producing a thriving stable society through exclusive adherence to their ideal regulations? Seems to be working really well for the Iranians and the Taliban.