The idea of gods is wonderful poetry, well matched by your poetic idea here. It really is a beautiful way of putting things.
Thanks! It
was rather good
Each new discovery, each time the envelope of knowledge is pushed back, things that were attributed to "the will of god" and the like are found to be natural phenomena. When underlying forces are discerned, "the will of god" is pushed back further, remaining within the unknown.
Attributing things to the "will of God" and to the "workings of God" are two different things. Did you mean to say the latter, here? It is the will of God that we glorify Him, which we do when we work the way we're supposed to...creating and discovering--the old "subdue the earth, and keep it" mandate. When we engage in activity that hurts, wastes, and oppresses, then we show evidence of our broken nature, not of God's will and/or workings.
The big questions, such as "what was before what we see as the universe existed", "why are the constants of the universe these constants and not some other constants", are easily answered by saying "the will of god". And they always have been, even when the big questions were, "why does bread rise" and "why was my father struck by lightning while tending his flock of sheep in the middle of an open field during a thunderstorm?"
I take it that your answer to the above questions (the first two) are "We don't know...yet." But operational science (as opposed to historical science) is incapable of ever answering those questions since no one was present at the beginning, and time travel is probably impossible. We can use the principles of historical science to get a pretty good idea, but even there one is looking at evidence that must be interpreted according to some framework, and a Theistic framework can be as valid as a materialistic one, since both worldviews are essentially non-falsifiable.
People have made beautiful art out of this idea of the gods, they have written great books, come up with grand philosophies and techniques of torture, epic poetry and rationalizations for uncountable murders, all at the same time. It is the will of god that the white man should enslave the black and other lesser races, otherwise it wouldn't happen...right?
It's funny, but the abolitionist movement relied on the same Scriptures to argue that it was the will of God that the black man be freed...
The "holy" books were written by people, translated by people, aliterated, selected, discarded, rhymed and rationalized, all by people. As such, they communicate subjective human history beautifully.
Anyone who makes more of those books than that is deluding themselves.
I disagree. That's pretty much all I can say, since we will always be talking past each other in this argument. I believe that the materialistic worldview you seem to be endorsing is untenable, given such concepts as human emotions and ideas of consciousness. You might claim that "someday" we will have materialistic explanantions for these things; indeed, we have explanations now that I find unsatisfactory. When science has definitie evidence on how something like the process of metamorphosis "evolved", I might find their arguments for the evolved human consciousness more compelling.
It is my opinion that the religious mind is so insecure that "I don't know" frightens them more than all the really awful images that religions use to compel obedience from their followers. That's why I enjoy Ian's harping on the idea of christians and their belief in Hella and her infernal torture chambers.
So much less elegant than karma, but even buddhism relies on the "punishment" of having to do it all over again, endlessly, eternally, until somehow one gets it "right" this time.
Okay, I believe that the idea of karma and reincarnation are Hindu beliefs rather than Buddhist, but I could be wrong, and being a stupid Christian, I am incurious about whether I'm right or not.
Hell is more than eternal torment in flames. It is separation from God, who is the point of man's existence. Those who have rejected offers of redemption are technically in hell now, since they do not enjoy a relationship with their Creator--are indeed incapable of even desiring such a relationship.
Logically, it's impossible to prove a negative. One cannot prove that the gods do not exist. The scientific mind, rather than assume "the gods" as an ultimate answer, is capable of the one leap that the religious mind is too terrified to make:
"I don't know...yet."
Funny, when I read my stoopid Creationsist websites, whenever they are presented with scientific data that challenges their theory on how things work, they say essentially the same thing.
www.answersingenesis.orgLook around, this is it. There are no gods. All we have is what we have right here, right now. We have each other, we have this world and any other worlds we can reach to work with. We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.
Do you have any scientific evidence for this last statement? No, wait, you already said that there was none.
So I can either believe in a world that was set up by an Infinite Creator who speaks reality into existence; Who cares about me personally and wants the best for me, and at the end of my life promises carry me into a world of everlasting happiness.
Or I could take what you are offering, which, as far as I can tell, is a smug satisfaction that I am intellectually superior to the rubes of the world.
I wonder...I wonder...