As a species, when we were younger we anthropomorphised everything. In other words, we translated externalities through our own experience. Hence God in our image etc.

Anthropomorhising is the only way we can relate to something that is outside of our understanding: by dressing it up in a framework we do understand.

The tenets of science rejects anthropomorphising. Objective observations only. Not easy but we are trying.

My point is this: I think having a deity is important, a higher source to inspire, comfort and offset ego.

But why do we not use the one thing that LITERALLY makes us, houses us, feeds us, protects us and offers us so much wonder and inspiration? Earth. 

Why is Earth not our principal god? There would be no atheists if it were. There would also be no elitism and I think that has to be the point. Obfuscation is the truth behind power.

Principal god: Earth (not even going to anthropomorphise it into her into Gaia)

Tags: Earth, God, actual, belief, literal, obvious

Views: 646

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/basic-principles.htm

"

Divine cosmos, sacred earth.

Pantheism has two central tenets:

The cosmos is divine.   The earth is sacred.

When we say the cosmos is divine, we mean it with just as much conviction, emotion and  commitment as believers when they say that their god is God.   But we are not making a vague statement about an invisible being who is beyond proof or  disproof. We are talking about our own emotional responses to the real universe and the  natural earth.

When we say "That tree is beautiful," we are not saying anything about the  tree in itself, but about the way we feel we must respond to the tree. We are talking  about the relationship between us and the tree.   In the same way, if we say THE UNIVERSE IS DIVINE we are making a statement about  the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and  power that surrounds us. We are saying this:

We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day    be reabsorbed into the universe.     We are made of the same matter as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home.    It is here and nowhere else that we can see the divine face to face. If we erect barriers    in our imagination - if we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies    beyond death - if we believe that the divine is found only in old books, or old buildings,    or inside our head - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a    glass darkly.     The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability    to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is    complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with    humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in other    words, in many of the ways that believers relate to their God.

When we say THE EARTH IS SACRED, we mean it with just as much commitment and  reverence as believers speaking about their church or mosque, or the relics of their  saints. But we are not making a statement about the supernatural. We are saying this:

We are part of nature. Nature made us and at our death we will be reabsorbed into    nature. We are at home in nature and in our bodies. This is where we belong; this is where    we must find and make our paradise, not in some spirit world on the other side of the    grave. If nature is the only paradise, then separation from nature is the only hell. When    we destroy nature, we create hell on earth for other species and for ourselves.

Nature is our mother, our home, our security, our peace, our past and our future. We    should treat natural things and habitats as believers treat their temples and shrines, as    sacred - to be revered and preserved in all their intricate and fragile beauty.

The dominant religions describe their gods in many ways: mysterious, awesome,  all-powerful, omnipresent, transcendent, infinite, eternal. These descriptions are not  simply projections of human characteristics. The traditional attributes of God are  based on the real properties of the universe (see The real divine attributes.)

When theists worship gods, they unknowingly worship the cosmos. If they believe that  God is also present in nature and the universe, they will perceive a part of the glory of  Being, yet still they will attribute this glory to something beyond Being. Still they will  fail to connect with nature and the universe in the deep intense way that pantheism makes  possible.

But theists who believe that God is separate from the universe separate themselves from  Reality. They turn their deepest attention away from the real divinity before their eyes,  towards an imaginary divinity inside their head. It veils Reality like a thick mist. It  turns believers into sleepwalkers."



What if, we are being fooled into believing? What if ‘belief’ is “The abomination that causes desolation”? What if the simple, gifting, testing, cleansing and nurturing Earth is our real mother and we’ve been too busy praying to the sky?

www.rickyost.com

Nice Rick! 

Let's not forget that the sun is an accretion over billions of years starting with dust gathering together into a core rock which attracted other rocks larger and larger in average size until a planet was made. Then another planet plowed into the Earth and created our moon. 

I'm wondering what day Earth turned into Gaia by thinking "I'm a planet among planets basking in energy from the sun"?

Where is the seat of Gaia's godly brain? Sure, we depend on the circumstances of Earth's surface, its atmosphere, and it's place in the solar system for life, but none of that demonstrates that the planet itself is alive. Are you implying we should worship a "being" which lack the capacity to think and engage in intentional behavior?

Oh, and BTW, human life as we know it would be impossible without the Moon. Is the Moon a smarty-pants, too?

Thanks Unseen. My new word for the day: accretion.

The earth it could be argued is VERY alive. Lacking cognizance and mental ability is hardly reason to strip it of the "being alive" title. You could argue that is has 'intentional behavior' in the sense that the physics of our natural world results in a precise and predictable result.

You've just learned a new word and it's "accretion"? That truly is sad.

Wow, I was unaware prior to this how much you need to learn. Okay, let's start with the relationship of prediction to intentionality (behavior based on intentions). Intentional beings base their intentions on predictions, but in order to be an intentional being, first one has to be able to form an intent. The physics of our world is blind, but can be used by an intentional being. Physics is predictable and thus allows of the forming of intentions, but the predictability doesn't imply intention. It's the opposite which is the case. When the apples falls from the tree to the Earth, no intention is involved even there, despite the fact that trees are living beings.

What you propose was the norm for millennia, and might be still practiced in some places, along with Sun worship. I think it may have been eroded when people grew with knowledge and wondered who made these things, thus positing an even greater entity (i.e. God). Anyway, even in the days of Earth and Sun worship, people still anthropomorphized them, with the Earth imagined to be like a human female, the sun like a human male, etc. Now that we have scientific insight, the earth and sun are uninspiring objects to worship. Few people believe they would answer prayers, or think natural phenomena are divine signs, as was once imagined. One can feel a sort of respect or appreciation of them, but that is not the same as worship. It would be like worshiping gravity. A gravitarian sect is not inspiring. 

When I have a conversation with theist friends, I speak of gravity as an alternative to a god in order to get them to think about a power that does not care about or meddle in the affairs of humans. When they can wrap their minds around that, which is a biiiiig stretch for some of them, then they are ready to think about no entity at all. 

It changes the conversation away from a footing where they have a bible or books to refer to. Most theists give at least lip service to alternate forms of worship. When I play the gravity card, they will converse, when I play the atheist card, often the conversation ends.

“Long ago, when an early galaxy began to pour light out into the surrounding darkness, no witness could have known that billions of years later some remote clumps of rock and metal, ice and organic molecules would fall together to make place called Earth; or that life would arise and thinking beings evolve who would one day capture a little of that galactic light, and try to puzzle out what had sent it on its way. And after the earth dies, some 5 billion years from now, after it's burned to a crisp, or even swallowed by the Sun, there will be other worlds and stars and galaxies coming into being -- and they will know nothing of a place once called Earth.”

― Carl Sagan

What's with these threads? It'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.

First I see Simon's hilariously nonsensical thread about how the tale of Jesus' crucifixion had "logic and value."

And now you're saying having a deity is "important, a higher source to inspire, comfort and offset ego."

Are you guys sleeper agents, or did you just hit your heads?

I think it's cave-human natural for us to feel there's a higher purpose, and to judge each other in terms of how well all tribal members conform to the support of the group. (This can even beget urges to ridicule others. See above.) But more to the question of anthropomorphism, I think that our ability to empathize with each other and predict each other's emotions and needs is what lead us to over-intellectualize our feelings to the extent that we even invented spirits and gods to explain the behavior of animals and processes (e.g. weather). That was before we had science, which we've had for maybe only something like 1% of our cultural evolution.

I'm in the middle here. On the one hand, I think it's important to realize how we humans have deluded ourselves wrt inventing and putting faith into supernatural entities (with personalities and minds of their own that we can empathize with, and claim to predict the behavior of). On the other hand, I think it's important to realize how powerful our human need to empathize has been in our social/cultural evolution, so much so that we accidentally project our empathy to other beings and objects, and we continue to invent new woo, practically every day. (Well, not all of us, but for those of us who continue to assume that all answers to our most profound questions must come from "out there", somewhere, if only we can mentally connect with it somehow.)

(Come to think of it, I'm often polishing my communication skills and empathy as I re-write and re-write these posts. Sorry about that. Sometimes it just doesn't come out as well as it first sounds in my head.)

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service