Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Dark Lord Sauron Gothmog Jaimbern |
![]() "One ring to rule them all". |
Mordor NS Discord Chat Channel |
| News: |
| Greetings, and welcome to Mordor. We hope you enjoy your visit. At the moment you are viewing our forum as guest. This means much of the forum is hidden to you and you are unable to use many of the features. To be able to post in forum and apply for citizenship you must register an account with your nation name. Once you have done that you can apply for citizenship and get the appropriate access to the whole forum! So what are you waiting for? Join our community! If you require diplomatic status as an envoy from another region, apply for diplomatic status here |
| Modern Religions Founded on a Fallacy? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 14 2014, 07:33 PM (43 Views) | |
| IH | Jan 14 2014, 07:33 PM Post #1 |
|
The Ever Curious
|
I believe that all modern, major religions are based and revolve around a fallacy dating, unsurprisingly, all the way back to Plato 2500 years ago. I will first outline what I mean by Formse. Idealism is a concept that we can trace to Plato in several of his writings, notably The Republic in which Plato lays out his idea of what a perfect society should be like, the most intelligent people on top (Philosopher-Kings, almost) and everyone else beneath them. To Plato, this picture of society that he had discovered was the ideal form of society, the epitome of what a society should be. Crucially to this, Plato believed that perfection was something real that could be obtained, that beyond the physical world in which we inhabit, there was the perfect form of society and everything else. Take for example, a rubber/eraser; in Plato's thinking, in the World of Forms that exists beyond our understanding, there is a perfect rubber that never runs out and it will stay the same constantly; the eraser is immutable (unchanging) and perfect, it is what we can consider to be the perfect eraser. Plato believes this is the case for all objects in the material world, that beyond physical knowledge there was a World of Forms and that the only way to gain knowledge of this World of Forms was to spend 60-70 years studying philosophy. This is discussed by Plato in his Allegory of a Cave, in which humanity is chained to the back wall of a cave on which the semblance of reality is projected from a faux light source (the light source represents Goodness and Justice, the true "Good" and "Justice" lie outside the cave and they are represented by the sun). In Idealism, we find the basis of all modern, major religions and why all of Western Philosophy for the last 2000 years was based on the teachings of Plato. In major religions currently and for the last 1000 years or so, we are told all of the qualities of God (he is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, One, Simple, Perfect, Immutable, Impassable etc.) yet nowhere in the religious texts of the major religions is this specified, it appears to have been taken directly from Plato and applied directly to religion without any editing. In the Hebrew Bible, for instance, God kills more people than Satan and humanity combined, yet now we think of God being perfect and completely unlike the tribal deity we find in the Hebrew Bible. Today and for the last 1000 years, God has taken on the face of an emotionless caretaker of the universe, he is exactly how Plato would describe a perfect being to be in the World of Forms. Naturally, however, this is not the role the deity of modern religion can take. Religion today demands that its deities be loving and kind, a being to which a person can have an intimate relationship. How can anyone have a relationship with an unfeeling, unchanging God? When a person is in most need of a God, it is in the times when they want to be comforted, this is not possible with the God of Platonism. So, why is this God so revered? Why do people take time out their day to worship a God with no personality and one that is equivalent to a force not unlike gravity? This is what troubles me. I would appreciate all opinions. |
![]() |
|
| Malkir | Jan 14 2014, 10:59 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Fell-Beast
|
I would like to start off by saying a few things about my reasons for answering. First, I don't want you to think that I'm in any way criticizing you for asking these questions. Furthermore I don't want you to think that I'm attacking you. I don't generally concern myself with questions of religion (I consider myself an agnostic when I do think about it) but I was raised Dutch Calvinist and so I've read big junks of the bible. That's why I'm answering your post: because I believe I can put it in some biblical context and provide you with some more things to think about. Secondly, I don't have my copy of Republic handy but I believe you're over-simplifying Plato's philosophy. Again my comments are not to attack you, but so that you and I can together benefit from further consideration of the ideas found in Plato. Finally, I realize that my style here of quoting you and then responding may appear terse and perhaps confrontational, I just want to reiterate that these are not my intentions at all. I quote you mostly so I can keep myself in context as I have a tendency to ramble. So, like Socrates, please forgive me if I proceed in my usual manner. Starting with Plato:
Like I said above, I don't have my copy of Republic handy so I'm mostly responding on memory. My interpretation of the "ideal state" was that it solely existed for Plato as a metaphor for individuals. I have always interpreted Republic through that lens: of using a larger, observable, phenomenon to come to a better understanding of what Justice means. My understanding for the reason why so many do interpret Republic in the way you do is that the English title Republic is directly from Cicero's translation of the Greek word Politeia as res Publica (or the commonwealth). The Greek Politeia can certainly be used to refer to the structure of a government as Cicero interpreted it, but it also seems to be used in a variety of other ways to refer to the ways in which people live their lives. I don't believe that Plato truly wished to see his metaphor placed into affect. And even if he did, I don't remember ever getting the sense from my reading of Republic that this was the perfect state. My memory of the dialogue is just that it was a stable state and the best one they could come up with. Plato almost never answers his own questions so I would hesitate to say that he believed the Philosopher Kingdom was the ideal form of society.
Here I also disagree with your interpretation of Plato. Again just from memory, my impression was just that the forms could be understood, not achieved. If we agree that Plato believed there existed a "realm of forms" separate from this reality, where the forms reside, then it would seem impossible for someone or something in this reality to achieve any form. The sun in the allegory of the cave merely illuminates the forms, it does not make them reachable. But for Plato I don't think that really mattered, what mattered was that each person would try to reach the forms.
Here I think you're mistaken. I can only speak for Christianity, but the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of God is everywhere in the bible. He wouldn't be God without them. Omnipotence "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." -Job 42:2 "For nothing will be impossible with God." -Luke 1:37 "But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” -Matthew 19:26 Omnipresence "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." -Revelations 22:13 Omniscience and Omnipresence "Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord." -Jeremiah 23:24 Omnipotence, omnipresence, and perhaps omniscience "Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable." -Isaiah 40:28
You are undoubtedly correct in saying that the God of Christianity is unchanging. However to suggest that he is unfeeling does not hold up in my understanding. One of my favorite verses: "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." -Jeremiah 29:11 More on God's feelings: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." -John 3:17 "The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." -Genesis 19:26 Abraham next asks "what if there are only 45? 30? 20? 10?" And for each of these God says that if there are that many people in Sodom he will spare the whole place for their sake. Sodom is often used as a metaphor for unforgivable sin, but here God would let it endure even for 10 righteous people. Abraham didn't tempt his luck by trying to go lower than 10 but I think it's clear that God cares about people. "Thus He remembered that they were but flesh, A wind that passes and does not return. How often they rebelled against Him in the wilderness And grieved Him in the desert! Again and again they tempted God, And pained the Holy One of Israel." -Psalm 78:40 Here God is even said to be pained by the sins of his people. What more genuine feeling is there but pain?
I think that the idea that God is a "force" is actually more intellectually a result of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. Of course I'm not well-versed in the intellectual history of either, but I always understood that they viewed God as an impersonal clock-maker. God set the machinery into motion and then stepped back. In which case I think it may still be appropriate to revere the expert craftsman. It was Einstein who said, "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." As I said above, I'm not a religious person. But these are my thoughts on your post. |
![]() |
|
| IH | Jan 15 2014, 07:01 PM Post #3 |
|
The Ever Curious
|
Thank you for the well considered comments, Malkir. Don't worry, I know you aren't setting out to attack me. ![]() I am an atheist and was raised irreligious, so I am curious about how the various religions of the world interact amongst themselves. I am interested in hearing all observations and criticisms of what I've wrote (there are many more, no doubt) and I want to hear them all. I think I'll use the same technique of quote and reply to respond to your points.
For sure the Republic primarily concerns itself with the ideas of Goodness and Justice and how to attain them at some point; the Allegory of a cave. I, like you, haven't read the Republic in a while so was operating from memory. It is entirely possible that the concept of the structure of society is found in another of Plato's works and I unwittingly connected it to the Republic. In response to the metaphor of Kings and Philosophers, I do believe it was Plato's strict belief that Philosophers should rule the land in the way that Kings did. Plato says that "there will be no end to the troubles of states" or "humanity itself" until "Philosophers become rulers in the world or, till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers." This, to me, seems like Plato is directly insinuating that Philosophers should rule as they are the most qualified to do so. Indeed, rulers took Plato seriously; Queen Christina of Sweden invited Descartes to be her tutor in the 17th Century.
You are quite right and this was my mistake. Plato believed that the World of Forms was something that could only be understood after years of study. I do disagree, however, with the assertion that everybody would attempt to reach the forms of their own accord. It was my understanding that it was a long and difficult intellectual journey to reach the forms and that only certain people would attempt the journey, these are philosophers; most people would rather remain in the cave and ignorant than attempt to leave it because it is easier to stay where they are. It was then the job of philosophers to instruct the people still chained in the cave how to leave it.
I think there is a disconnect in saying that God is both unchanging yet caring. For something to be completely unchanging, as God is portrayed to be, he would have to be entirely distant from humanity. God, for instance, could not be both kind and cruel because to do so would be against the characteristics of the God of Classical Theism and, therefore, logically impossible. For every act of kindness God makes in the Bible, he makes at least one act of cruelty. Mathew 11:20-30 states that "But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." Jesus in this case was talking of two cities that didn't take kindly to his preaching, in essence, he has commanded that come the Rapture, they will be treated worse than the city of Sodom, Sodom, of course that had Fire and Brimstone rained down upon it. To me, this does not appear to be an unchanging God, but a capricious one. If God is changing in his moods, as this Bible passage would appear to indicate, it is entirely probable that all of the other aspects of God that I have described are also fallacies, them having originated from the same source. I'd like to thank you, Malkir, for this discussion, it's a nice change from NS discussion. |
![]() |
|
| Malkir | Jan 16 2014, 12:02 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Fell-Beast
|
Just a few thoughts on your response.
I think I had better try harder to explain my personal interpretation of Republic. Socratic dialogues center around a single question. In the case of Republic that question is: what is justice? My view is that Plato constructed this discussion about a hypothetical society as a stand-in for the individual. So instead of looking at what justice is for an individual we're supposed to be trying to look at what is just in a society and then come back to draw the connects with an individual. The elements of the Republic are supposed to represent parts of the human soul. In some ways its psychoanalytical. I suppose you could say that the Philosopher King is supposed to represent some rational element of the human soul which is supposed to govern the emotional parts of the soul (there was a third part but I can't for the life of me remember what it was... I remember something about anger and disgusts...) It's not really relevant whether rulers took Plato seriously or not because we're discussing Plato's views, not how others interpreted him. Unfortunately all we have are competing interpretations to use. I personally think that Plato was disillusioned with government entirely and didn't really care about how to create the best government and was really interested in answering these philosophical, not political, questions. It was Aristotle who spent years cataloging the various constitutions in existence. I believe that if Plato really intended this dialogue to be about figuring out the best form of government he would have had someone ask Socrates at the beginning "what is the best form of government?" That's a question that shows up in a lot of classical works. Herodotus and Thucydides discuss it, and Aristotle was clearly interested in it. So if Plato wanted to tackle governments why didn't he just come out and say that? It's interesting that the middle of Republic focuses almost exclusively on the Republic while the beginning and the end don't at all. I think that's evidence that for Plato the discussion on government should not be considered his true beliefs on government, but should rather be considered a rhetorical device for defining justice as an individual concept. I understand it's not a commonly held understanding of Plato's great work and that it's based on my own faulty memory, but I felt I ought to at least attempt to better elucidate my own views of Plato's views and purposes for the dialogue.
I completely agree, personally, but I'm not sure Plato would. Socrates (in Plato) always seems to have a hard time believing people would knowingly hurt themselves, while simultaneously believing that wrongdoings were damaging to a person's soul. For Plato a wrong seems to be bad from the individual standpoint outside of a social setting. It's not wrong for me to steal simply because society will punish me for it, but because in stealing I hurt my own soul. It makes me wonder how well Khalil Gibran was versed in Plato because that same idea shows up in his poetry (I digress). In this view of wrong, Plato is forced to adopt a stance that people do wrong simply because they don't know any better: they are unable to see the good. In the interpretation of Republic I've outlined above, the Philosopher King represents a part of the human soul which pushes people toward the good. I believe Plato wanted to tell people that they should try to live lives where that part of the soul balances the other irrational, emotional, and hedonistic parts. However, and I think Plato recognized this, most people don't have that kind of balance in their souls and this pushes them away from the good. But it's not that these people are not striving toward the good, it's that their souls are out of balance and as you've said they haven't spent a lot of time trying to put their souls into balance by studying philosophy. I do think that Plato was trying to say some things about philosophy as a career/lifestyle here.
I think our disagreement here is the result of differing definitions of "unchanging." But if I may say some other things before getting into that. I'm no theologian, nor am I a philosopher, I'm studying to be an economist. Just keep that in mind. I think you're operating under a definition of unchanging as "never changing." In that case you are completely correct to say that god is not unchanging. There are clearly examples of where God changes his mood, his tone, his favor, and perhaps his mind. The last example is the only that seems truly puzzling to me, but more on that later. I think it's more instructive to define unchanging as "internally consistent." By this definition God can remain unchanging and have still have a deep character so long as he responds to the same things in the same way. In my definition God is unchanging because his default state seems to be love for everyone but he gets mad when you turn your back on him. What's unchanging here are the rules which govern God's behavior (that's got to be among the most heretical things I've ever typed: me, attempting to divine God's decision making process? Strike me down now). It may be a looser definition of unchanging, but I think it's consistent with the bible. Now to move on to the idea of God changing his mind. This seems to be the most troubling possibility raised here. My first instinct is that God shouldn't change his mind because being omniscient he would make the best choice the first time around. This isn't to say he CANNOT change his mind, merely that he would never have need to. People change their minds given new information, God has all the information from the beginning and therefore never has cause to respond to new information. In my first post I quoted a verse from Genesis where Abraham is trying to convince God not to destroy Sodom. I've heard people say that God changes his mind here but I'm not really convinced. It seems more like an if, then statement to me. Abraham keeps offering "what if there are x number of righteous people there?" and God responds, "then I won't destroy the city." You can evade the deeper question here simply through storytelling. "God knows how many Sodomites are righteous and has already made a decision. Abraham doesn't know and so still thinks there's hope. God doesn't change his mind but just fills Abraham in on how he made this decision" Unfortunately, it's all just storytelling. |
![]() |
|
| Beian | Jan 19 2014, 04:51 PM Post #5 |
Loving Leader of Best Country
|
When you say modern religions are you only talking about the monotheistic ones, or all current religions in general? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:04 PM Jul 11
|
Theme created by Sjaelen Auren from Zathyus Networks Resources









7:04 PM Jul 11