Dear all,
Thanks for the insightful replies so far (and also for the link, Nvr!)
@Brain Dead
I totally understand your line of reasoning, because it is mine as well. But here are some questions and comments based on your post:
Gods were created on the basis of human ignorance and imagination as it was thousands of years ago as it is today, over the centuries we've slowly and painfully gained knowledge of the world around us through discoveries and scientific conclusions.
I agree that the gods as we know them (anthropomorphic) were created in our image. This is the projection thesis by Feuerbach. I also agree that the way to gain objective knowledge of the world is through the scientific method. This method results in propositions like "The earth is round / spherical" or "life changes through evolution". These propositions are objective because they are the same from every subject-position, that is, the subject-position is irrelevant. You can be a die-hard nay-saying creationist, but still you take part in the evolutionary process (oh irony :). You can look through a telescope on Mars and still the earth will be spherical.
The door of this knowledge has just begun to open, look how far and how much we've gained in just the last century alone. I personally cherish the wisdom of the truth of knowledge and dealing with the reality of life as it presents itself, good or bad
Agreed, when talking about objective knowledge. Also agreed that it is far better to take life as it is than to hide in some sort of fairy-world where the dead will be resurrected etc. My point is, however, that you are adopting a very narrow scope of knowledge, i.e only objective-technological. Objective knowledge describes the functioning of the world around us, but as subject-positions are irrelevant to it, it can not give meaning. That is because meaning requires a subject-position, a meaning-giver. It is subjective knowledge, knowledge that encompasses both object and subject. In short, you are measuring subjective knowledge on an objective scale. But subjective knowledge has its own truth, a resonating of images in your own psyche (truth-for-you!) Don't get me wrong, the proposition "God exists" is objective, because if he does, he does so for all. As this proposition can not be falsified, it is meaningless (I'm following the analytic tradition of philosophy here).
If anyone thinks that human ignorance was not prevalent thousands of years ago, one really needs to do some in-deft history reading or read the bible, Torah, or any ancient religious manuscripts to prove my point
Fully agreed, but once again only when taking the very narrow scope of objective knowledge. Of course the bible is wrong in the creation account, or saying that the sun stood still. But it can still have subjective meaning.
Mysticism is imagination supported by ignorance in the human mind, this separates itself from reality and conclusion. Perhaps if men were to finally walk away from their gods and walk toward humanity together we would be better off, I think so. In my opinion the death of a god can only happen in the minds of the people who first created it.
I have studied mysticism a lot, but I do not agree with you at all. It is kind of like reading a poem by Rumi (a famous Persian mystic) about God being universal love (notice that this is metaphor, not an analytical proposition), and saying: "this is meaningless, because God does not exist!". Analytically you are absolutely right, but poetically you're interpretation would be very empty: you are reading propositions where you should read metaphors. Poetry is the hallmark of subjective knowledge. The essence of poetry is metaphor. Ergo metaphor is the hallmark of subjective knowledge: taking one thing as a sign for another, resulting in deeper understanding by seeing the similarities.
In conclusion, while not downplaying science at all, there are some pretty universal human themes that cannot be explained by science simply because they do not fall in the objective sphere of knowledge: poetry, the sacred, mysticism are some of these themes. I think it would be quite radical to just do away with these. It results in a loss of the sacred, defined as that-which-is-set-apart. It can be seen in our society today. Humans are an animal symbolicum , they not only need to know how things (like the sun, moon etc) function objectively, they must make them into symbols, signs, metaphors, to give meaning, to deepen our poetic understanding of the universe. I do not think this is primitive, I think it is what makes us truly human.
Kind Regards,
Deus Mauzzim
(of the poetic-atheist class :)