I see I chose an unfortunate title for my post because it’s not at all about what Dawkins was saying. I think religion has many other causes, mostly having to do with bio/cultural evolution.

@skado "Bio/cultural evolution" - unlike the deadly virus that inflicts now that came about due to cultural interaction with unusual food sources and evolved to reap its havoc mmm

@273kelvin
I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying evolution is bad?

@skado Evolution is neither good nor bad, it just is. It can make something as wildly successful as a dinosaur only to have them wiped out, something disastrously bad for the planet as humans or send a whole species down a dead-end like giant pandas. The more successful species adapt to new environments, just as some religions have adapted and some dead ones have not.

I’m not doing any of what you suggest. I’m just talking about anthropology, from a purely scientific perspective. It has nothing to do with me or belief.

@skado science operates by making definitions of key concepts explicit. How do you define god, almighty, creator, etc.

@bootaski
I have explained it in the linked post as well as I know how, using standard dictionary definitions of words. God is the supreme being. Look up the definition of supreme and the definition of being.

@skado your explanation in the linked post is indirect and amorphous. The dictionary definitions of supreme, being, and god don’t lend themselves to inquiry from a purely scientific perspective. How would you devise an experiment to test whether god is the supreme being

@bootaski
I don't know how to be more direct than "the entirety of reality". We're talking about linguistics here, not physics. There's nothing to test. There is no way to test whether reality exists, and no need to. It's axiomatic. Whether we call that reality universe or god doesn't change the fact that it exists. See what I'm saying?

@skado Then why use the term god for “entirety of reality?” If the entirety of reality is supreme and almighty what does that specifically imply? What do you mean when you say that? Do we treat the entirety of reality as a conscious person with powers over humans whose commands we can divine and must obey? We are part of the entirety of reality - are we therefore somehow supreme and almighty?What do we conclude from that statement?

The reality we experience is a given, that’s true, but the conclusions you’re drawing aren’t clear.

@bootaski
Fair questions, all.

“Then why use the term god for “entirety of reality?”

I don’t think there is any particular need to now. All I’m saying is maybe that’s what people were really referring to when they first started talking about gods - real phenomena that they had no modern words for, or understanding of.

“If the entirety of reality is supreme and almighty what does that specifically imply? What do you mean when you say that?”

Using the most foundational meanings from a dictionary, “being” just means something that exists. “Supreme” just means the greatest, utmost, or extreme. So what is the greatest or utmost thing that exists? The universe, right? So what’s more powerful, me or the universe? The universe was here before me; it’ll be here after I’m gone. It made me. I have to obey its rules; it doesn’t have to obey mine.

I’m just pointing out some of the similarities between what ancient people called god and what we call the universe. Of course, in their ignorance, they attributed agency to the universe, and we now understand how natural systems like evolution can create complex life forms without agency. So...

“Do we treat the entirety of reality as a conscious person with powers over humans whose commands we can divine and must obey?”

We no longer need to think of the universe as literally conscious, but it certainly has powers over us, and for the most part, we haven’t yet learned how to circumvent the laws of physics, even though we have divined some of them through use of the scientific method.

“We are part of the entirety of reality - are we therefore somehow supreme and almighty?”

We are indeed a part of it, so its nature and our nature are not foreign to each other. But it is the entirety and we are the part, so it fits the definition of supreme and we don’t. It still has power over us we don’t have over it.

“What do we conclude from that statement?”

All I’m concluding is that there’s reason to believe that primitive humans who spoke or wrote about gods were referring to things that do, in fact, exist. They weren’t psychotic, just unaware of what we have now discovered through science. We no longer have any good reason (that I’m aware of) to think of God as a self-aware, sentient being, with agency, but we still have every reason to think of God as a personification of the entirety of reality, and that it of course exists. And that our relationship to it has many parallels to the power dynamics expressed in primitive religious belief.

@skado thanks for clarifying. What you’re describing is classical pantheism, reverence for nature, right? But have you ever considered the possibility that our perceptions have no external referents? The idea that our subjective experiences may be all that we can know or be certain of (Daniel dennett’s brain in a vat thought experiment / kant’s transcendental idealism)

@skado *gilbert Harman’s brain in a vat thought experiment

@bootaski
In this post, I’m not talking about a movement, practice, doctrine, or even a feeling, like reverence. I’m just talking about a possible evolution of language and meaning, from a purely linguistic and anthropological perspective.

The idea that our perceptions may have no external referents seems unlikely to me, given that the scientific method works at all, let alone as well as it does. It may be entertaining to ponder, but I don’t see how it could impact my life one way or the other. I would still have to pay my rent.

This post is essentially about the difference between religious literalism and religious figuratism. A religious literalist would typically interpret the word soul as something we "have" that leaves the body when we die, and continues living without the body. The religious figuratist would say "soul" just refers to the life in you, which, by definition, no longer exists when the body dies.

Religious literalists seem to think soul and spirit are maybe the same thing? I don't really know what they think, and obviously, they don't all think alike. I think what early writers were referring to when they used the word "spirit" was something more like attitude, or relative emotional buoyancy. So the word spiritual could be translated as attitudinal.

@skado Then, imo, you still have NOT offered up any explanation to either.

@Triphid

ok

.

@skado The term 'Spirit' can mean almost anything from an Alcoholic drink, a fluid distilled called Methylated Spirits, the 'Spirit' of a/the Community/Culture/Civilisation, etc, etc, the 'Spirit of Progress/Emdeavour/Enterprise and so on and so forth right through to and including the 'Spirit' of endurance, i.e. the resolve of a person to endure the hardships, etc, of life, illness, etc, etc.
So, therefore, what 'Spirit' are you trying to convince us about?

@Triphid

This one:

8. an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action.

[dictionary.com]

All of the ones you mentioned fit, more or less, under this definition, except for the alcohol.

@skado Alcoholis still defined, both scientifically and by dictionaries, as being a 'Spirit.'

@Triphid
Yes it is, and a lot of other things are too. You asked me which one I was talking about.

@skado Yes and you still, imo, have defined absolutely nothing to differentiate between Religous 'spirituallity' and any other form/s/meaning/s of 'spirit.'
And, imo, NOR have you offered any Empirically tried, tested and proven EVIDENCE that said 'Spirituality' actual exists or has every existed.

@skado Reality = proven, and concluded by Empirically tried, tested, FACT.
Whereas Assumption/Supposition = Guess-work and Presumption MINUS any tangible, Empirically tried, tested evidence, etc, etc.

@Triphid

ok

.

Thanks but I'd prefer to stick with the science.

@skado
Then actually do some real research that actually uses scientific methods instead of paid off, hence overtly biased so called researchers whose results only suit the profit motives of their corporate funding!!!

Maybe if you actually use science instead of spewing nonsense!!!

Such as using testing which is not meant for any form of pandemic!

I didn't mention, and am not talking about anything supernatural.

"What does that even mean?"

What part of it is unclear to you?

"Reality is reality, and what physical laws describe, much less govern this so-called 'greater reality?"

To the extent that we know, the scientifically accepted laws of physics.
All I mean by "greater reality" is simply the entirety of it, not something beyond it. I mean, not just human affairs, not just the Earth, not just our solar system or galaxy, but the whole shebang - everything that exists.

"Which of our 5 senses would we use in observing and reporting on 'greater reality?"

All five of them plus reason. In short - the scientific method.

"This is not a question of demeaning people, so long as their unsubstantiated 'feelings' are not asserted as being a factual counternarrative, worthy of being made part of the curriculum or having a seat at the table of science..."

I'm not talking about unsubstantiated feelings. Nonetheless I'm glad to hear that you don't demean religious literalists who don't try to pollute science or education, but you must surely have noticed that not everyone is as generous as you.

@skado I guess I need more examples to better understand.

@p-nullifidian
Examples of which?

Which IT are you referring to? Reality? Seems axiomatic to me. Without need of any evidence other than the reality we see. It's a word we invented to point to a concept. The concept of all of existence. Whatever that is made of is not at issue. In order to function, we must assume we exist... whether we have ironclad proof of it or not. Call it a necessary expedient.

@skado The many takes on spirituality and gods.

@DenoPenno
Just depends on how you define them. If God is a word for reality, I don't see that any proof is needed. We must assume reality exists, if only in our imaginations.

@skado Red herring."God' is not a word for reality. God is a word that is used to explain everything including how you got here and where you are going.

@DenoPenno
Not red or herring - historical fact. I understand that that may be your personal view of the word, but it is by no means a universal understanding. Greater minds than mine throughout history, from Spinoza to Tillich have used the word in a similar way.

@DenoPenno
p.s. Reality kinda is the explanation for everything including how you got here and where you are going. See the similarity?

@skado Reality is not an it or a thing, has no mindset, and cannot be used in any way to prove how you got here. Maybe, if the "reality" is that you had parents. As for where you are going the end result of that is to the grave. While living you seem to have control of it, but not so much once you die. Sorry. I cannot fall in line and just keep on making it up. Religious people do that number but I no longer believe. I'm done.

@DenoPenno
The reality IS that I had parents, as far as I can tell. Plus the fact that they had parents, and so on back to the first living thing and beyond to the beginning of time and whatever "preceded" that. How is that not a thing? I've not claimed it has a mindset - I haven't seen any evidence for that. And of course to the grave. What's not real about that?

@DenoPenno if god is reality, it has cancer, at least in this planetary system.

@maturin1919 No, TRUE reality is that your are conceived, mostly by the act of sexual intercourse btw, are then born, live, eat, defecate, breathe, etc, etc, age and then die.
THAT IS the reality of life and the entire Universe that surrounds us, EVERYTHING has shelf-life, NOTHING is Eternal.

@maturin1919 Reality is what you are, I am and is everything around you, in you and exists with or without you.
Does the Universe care or shed a tear when you are dead and gone, No, it just leeps on as it always has.
If you, I, or anyone else were not born would the Earth stop rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun, No, it did that long, long before humans evolved that IS the Reality of all things.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@skado . . . I'm familiar with the GToD, but your post is about an idea with NO actual evidence, much less long-standing corroboration.

IMO, the colloquial use of the scientific term is highly misguided and subject to inconsistencies that religious folks like to use as ammunition -- "Evolution is just a theory" -- and those who like and attempt Critical Thinking should avoid it when inappropriate.

@FearlessFly 100% agree

@FearlessFly
I understand your concern and I know it’s important to know the difference between literal and figurative language and when to use either.

One of the points of my post is that relentlessly strict, literal use of language can be very damaging in certain contexts. It’s a matter of knowing when to use which; not just deciding that one is forever right and the other forever wrong.

Another point is that framing any class of people as enemies, just because they envision complex concepts differently, is unnecessary and destructive, and ultimately self-defeating. Talk of ammunition, if taken literally, is war talk. The only way I can accept that you aren’t suggesting killing religious people is by taking your words figuratively. I hope you can extend the same courtesy to me, and the playful use of words in my title.

@skado I would not, in any way, describe or perceive your misuse of the word theory as 'playful' (especially on this website).

@FearlessFly
You're under no obligation to take it as it was intended.

@FearlessFly
The main thrust of the post was that people who get caught up in semantic rigidity miss the actual substance of the communication.