Why history is a better argument against God than science

Okiefreak:

What an assumption to make! There's purpose all over the place! lol There's no one purpose to infinity though. In my limited yet unalienable experience, it takes an atheist to joyously bet on themselves. : D The self is always to be celebrated!

 

Thanks for the recommendation.

While I believe "Christianity evolved from sun worship" is an incomplete explanation, it definitely gets at the general phenomenon: that monotheistic theology evolved (ultimately from Pagan origins), and that a thorough reading of history can trace the process. Trying to detach from assumptions and reading the Bible is enough by itself (no mention of Jesus being God at least in earlier gospels, hints of polytheism in the Old Testament, and the clearly evolving nature of God when you learn which parts of the Bible were composed when and read them chronologically). But seeing outside influences like the Greco-Roman mystery religions (including Sol Invictus, the unconquered sun, famously born on December 25th), noting the similarities and seeing the obvious influence they would have had in that culture says a lot.

 

I cant even imagine a functioning abstraction that would fit the idea we call "purpose". To me its like you're saying "Atheists assume there is no number 1 in the universe". I think it is, and has always been a superfluous abstraction, which is why it fits in so well with most religious ideas. What you're doing is imagining problems that don't exist. "Blind nature", and "Purposelessness" aren't real things that stand up to close examination, and dealing with them is dealing with false dichotomies.

I think the best way to measure argument against interest is to ask yourself what you stand to lose if you are wrong. uncoincidentally I think the answer to that question is also the answer to "What do I not understand". I also think its a bit demeaning to suppose that things could get better than they already are. Why I cant imagine heaven as a better place will have to be chalked up to existential superfluousness (who made god, purpose, ect) that I cant help but recognize now.


On topic:

Mithraic stories are almost indistinguishable from those of the bible. The sun god sending Mithras to slay the primeval bull for the benefit of mankind has all
the elements history would need to turn it into today's story of Jesus sacrificing himself. Considering when Mithraism appeared, I think its what some would call another Christian denomination. Back then each group accusing one another of copying each others stories and the subsequent ban on paganism marked by increased animosity towards the Mithraic. Many Mithraic temples were destroyed and had churches built on top of them.

Despite all that, when deciding which day to celebrate the birth of Jesus they also chose the winter solstice; The birthday of Mithras.

Its not too rare to have a deity who was born of a virgin or in some other strange way, died for his people and then resurrected.

 

Seems to me these histories do not argue against god at all but more describe how cause in the guise of of god has been interpreted. The most contemporary god at the moment is science. Perhaps you may not recognize science as a belief system, but such it is. Science posits that there is a fact, or a process, or a formula that can be counted on, that there is cause to be discovered.

 

What makes it controversial? Seems to me fact is fact and a pattern of similar descriptions of cause does not threaten any truth.

 

I'd disagree. God as he's conventionally understood is an eternal being as opposed to a construct in our minds. I'm not arguing against the mystical God, or God as an experience, as these are very real, very powerful things, but against the traditional Abrahamic God.

You can call science a god if you want, or not. My argument isn't even against all conceptions of divinity, just the traditional Abrahamic one, which is what most people think of when they say "God". I am not speaking of "the ultimate focus of a persons life" or "something higher that controls all", as one could argue science might.

 

Well there is what people believe and then there are observably manifest effects. Beliefs never contend with the truth, only with other beliefs. Theology is not the effective part of religious devotion, it only stands in contrast to other theologies.
I can't speak for most people but conventional understanding is mental construct, as our picture of the world is always a simulation. We may never escape the effects of our own thinking. Everything is an idea.

 

Reading your original post over again and with this post in mind (I agree with almost everything you've said here), I think I misunderstood what you were trying to get at. I may still, but just to clarify: I'm talking about a being with specific attributes here, not "cause" generally or the interpretation of it. I do not subscribe to the idea that God was invented to explain how the universe got here, or as an earlier substitute for science (though this was almost certainly a part of it). There doesn't seem to be much evidence for it considering genetics having an influence on religious impulse, which implies to me much of it is emotional. God is rather a phenomenon that arises to satisfy several human needs. We seem to agree on this, but I am not talking about those general human needs and all their various manifestations (including science and other mythologies), but the narrow conception of God (as a literal being) endorsed by most Jews, Christians, Muslims, and arguably Sikhs. History strongly implies this being does not exist because you see signs of it evolving in response to societal/political factors and just general cultural evolution.

 

God was invented alright, but it was neither History or Science. God was invented to reveal love only when we realize we can live without computers. There may be a non-revealed God with computers if we just accept plastic where it's going to; a newly revealed consumption convenience. But the 'revealed religion' God may have to continue to be invented in the course of Geschichte history (history in the making of new understanding). Living with computers is also difficult, there and now is understood a new operating system a balance of harmony and the ipod is to take us Home, all us homesick for a peace of mind away from so commonly the office computer.

Thus God against god. The End of Science. God dies independently of our desires for scientific solutions to the ordinary idea of opening a book.

 

We are close in perspective although I don't understand why you single out that particular manifestation of human behavior to point to as false. I don't see it any more a false construct than any other. From my perspective nothing real can be threatened, that is in absolute real terms, everything else is an abstraction.

The abrahamic construct serves as a cultural currency suited very well to an egotistical patriarchal and imperialist model. It is very much suited to nationalistic enterprise. Note that it always lends sanction to expansion and conquest.

 

Now I can answer Greenpeace about the Barbie Doll thing and the ever increasing number of gas stations not being meant to actually cause Global Warming. But the 'true' construct was an argument of materialism and how things change our consciousness.

 

The argument for it being false was sort of incidental to the post. I was more responding to the strong popularity of science as an argument against God; believe it is history that poses the greatest challenge to it since uncovering the origin of the construct makes it more obvious God is not literally real outside our minds, since it shows where he came from. Science (at best) just says "there is no need in the universe for God", but doesn't really rule out the possibility of his literal existence.

 

thedope:

Is this idea perhaps the only instance of an absolutism that...isn't?

In 'the beginning' is the word, deed, image, and funnily enough-- us!

No cause beyond the human will can ever hold our interest (as the universe is not an argument.) The 'argument' against god is the fact of personal integrity! It needn't be one. Not only does the universe have no need of god, we don't. It's funny how we can speak for everyone only if we love everyone. Funny!

 

Magnanimous for sure.

 

You're right about her "claims". Some of her critics think she's a charlatan who makes a bundle by telling her audience what they want to hear. She draws a lot of her thesis from outdated sources and her writings are riddled with inaccuracies. But she's right about the things you mention.