This discussion, both serious and amiable, reminds me that my 'research' lists religion and its associated depths and surfaces, as at its core, entertainment. Were we able to accept it as such, it could be a relatively pleasant, productive interaction. A game an individual plays with himself, then shares. It is filled with twisting trails and astonishing discoveries, with the kind of wonder Albert Ple calls will-power (not the 'nose-to-the-grindstone' slavery which evolved into a Protestant 'ethic') - a pleasurable, exciting mental and physical 'occupation' taken from early Islamic scholarly thought (from the old Sanskrit 'wel' as in well being). Learning, understanding, debate, imagining, questioning, supposing, letting that Einstein brand of mysticism take form, devotion to the notion - all leading to scriptural praise for 'the scholar' who is elevated above all other devotees. Of course nowadays 'the scholar' of many faiths studies only one book only for the purpose of domination and has forgotten all about 'entertainment' ... What I have seen here has that more genial flavor. Such exchanges expand our minds, make us work at the thing we enjoy so much. Science keeps us constantly flexible, nimble, ever adding new material to the journey. It takes courage and self-confidence to embrace change, because most religion is designed to instill dependency yet also fear and mistrust. I am reminded of two tribes which have never heard of religion, greed or warfare. One lives in remote Southeast Asia, the other in the Amazon. Both live under a vast forest cover and seldom see the sun, let alone the stars. The early part of their day is spent gathering food and completing simple chores. Then they eagerly huddle together, men and women, children and pets. They spend the rest of the day telling each other of their dreams, of the fantastic voyages they each took while apart. Not much 'drama', just comfort, mutual support, pleasure. Living.

Robert Tulip wrote:How I see it is that astrotheology shows that metaphysics has to be grounded in physics.

This statement alone is cause for confusion. But I understand the entire paragraph completely and you did a good job of explaining it Robert.

This means that the metaphysics of theology and myth largely originates in efforts to explain nature, but these efforts gradually got detached from the original intent, until that intent was largely lost to sight and memory.

This is entirely true. We can see the progression through time where ancient peoples knowingly mythologized their observations of nature. This brought in God or Neter (forces of nature) symbolism in Egypt which were continually used and re-used, hybridized again and again, and eventually found their way into the common era with the Hermetic writings, Gnosticism, and Christianity. These religious movements were further and further removed from the original intent of mythologizing nature to where the flashy symbolic images were mistaken as literally gods and eventually Yahweh as transcendent of nature and the cosmos completely.

Yet, in analyzing a question such as the relation between Christ and the Sun, we can find the origin of the salvation motifs in ancient nature worship. So the physical observation of the revival of the sun each day and year led to a metaphysical representation of the sun as a god, and then this metaphysical idea separated over time from its natural origin. Yet, it is the natural physical origin that gives the metaphysical idea its power, with an ongoing subconscious resonance among believers, who do not understand what it is that they worship. They idolise Jesus Christ as an imaginary man, when really it is the constant regeneration of nature at the source of the myth that gives the hidden impetus to the religion.

This holds true whether or not any historical person was used as a base for the solar myth. In a reality where we observe and retain constant natural cycling, over and over again, there is something in the way of a strong psychological power involved in using the dying and rising motif. They've confused the living hell out of the motif in Christianity, but nevertheless the power of the appeal of the religion points squarely back at the writers use of the solar cycle and organic life cycle of the annual year. The Great Year is more obscure and for the benefit of the priest class more or less, but still a powerful psychological tool nonetheless. They bring in political issues of the time to the table which also tugs at peoples heart strings in powerful ways. The passion story can be so dramatic to the point of making people cry their eyes out about what hardships Jesus had to endure. But we're talking about the metaphorical life and death of the sun when all is stripped bare. The three day solstice and the spring equinox three months later. We are indeed looking at a myth based on continuing the life cycle mythologies of antiquity, the ones that really were based on basic observation of nature as you've said. And it seems fitting to me that society should come full circle like this and suddenly wake up to the fact that these stories aren't meant to be taken so literally and historically accurate in the first place. It's a rather nasty lie to zealously go around promoting them as such, although the proselytizers may be completely convinced that they're doing the right thing and not lying to anyone at all.

They're locked into a sub-conscious tangle where the underlying truth of a cyclic nature reality experienced by all is drawing them in, but they have no idea what the truth factor deep in the myth really entails. It's not true that some magical Jewish God-Man died and rose from the grave in three days (in a literal factual sense) in any provable way, but it is true and completely provable that the sun stops moving visibly for three days at the solstices and the reverses direction - which is what the myth is really playing off of. I drive to work every morning on a road that faces due east, much as the Sphinx and cause ways at the Giza necropolis are oriented (NE, E, SE). I read through Buvaul's "The Message of the Sphinx" and took in all that he noted about the Giza necropolis and how the cause ways are oriented to the sun's southern to northern journey through the year when looking towards the east. I experience the very same view here and I've spent the last year consciously paying attention to the annual journey of the sun from the furthest southeast point (to the right of the road) to the furthest northeast point (to the left of the road). And this month it's southern journey away from the summer solstice is bringing the sun, or Jesus / Horus if you will, closer and closer to the point of true east. The bright morning solar star.

This is such a simple observation. It's easily mapped out by anyone paying attention to it. And it would seem that this annual journey - witnessed over and over and over again - must have some subconscious value in everyone's mind. Or at least a lot of peoples minds. Once you catch it then it's a real "aha" moment. The myth of Jesus makes so much more sense when understanding all of this astronomical history behind mythological / religious evolution. I think it's more than clear that it all started out as natural physical observation greatly personified and given metaphysical decoration with time. But I understand all of that as an atheist outside of religion, not a theist within religion. There's no reason that atheists shouldn't or wouldn't be able to understand mythology in these terms. Yeah there are still a lot out there that still don't quite get it, but this knowledge is only gaining awareness on the internet and elsewhere. There's plenty of debate about it and we have ZG part 1 mainly to thank for the world wide burst in publicity (And Murdock to thank for inspiring much of ZG part 1). Atheism seems to be adapting to the debate with pseudo-skeptics bringing opposition and the more learned understanding what becomes of the pseudo-skeptics arguments. GodAlmighty certainly tanned some rears on youtube with his "The differences outweigh the similarities" series. The argument was rendered meaningless just like that. Those atheists which you oppose are easily refuted. But what about the mythicist atheists? How exactly are they refute d in your opinion Robert?

tat tvam asi wrote:You know Robert, appreciate the myths for what they actually are. Stories. The myths are simply stories. The stories have much to do with the sun and just about any good atheist in this day and age knows that. It's bloody obvious to the learned.

This is all good discussion, and I will go through the comments in order. The big myths are not simply stories. They provide a framework of meaning for a community. The popularity of myths is generally a function of how well they point to a deeper purpose. For example in Christianity, the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary says much about patriarchal attitudes towards sex. By idolising a virgin goddess, the subtext that sex is evil is used to justify monkish chastity. There may well be some myths that lack a deeper meaning, but I suspect you would be hard pressed to find popular myths that lacked any allegorical cosmic content.

In my case I only gained a true sense of mystery in life by crossing over from theism to atheism. In theism there was some degree of mystery for sure, but that was entirely clouded over by a false sense of knowing things that are not truly known. I thought I knew where life came from. I thought I knew the earth was young. I thought that I knew the meaning of life. I thought that I knew a lot of things that are simply not so in reality. And the sense of true mystery hit me like a freight train when I woke up and realized that I didn't actually know the half of it. All of that false sense of security was suddenly stripped away. And suddenly, ironically, I was then facing the real meaning of the religious function of myth which is simply standing in awe of the mysterium tremendum that men have labeled as "God."

This question of mystery is key. There is false mystery and true mystery. An example of false mystery is how a virgin could give birth, pointing to how a supernatural entity could miraculously intervene on our planet. The true mystery here is how the meme of the virgin birth is allegory for natural events, for example the sense of the night as virginal and pure, giving birth to the day. Another true mystery is how the allegory within religion was so successfully repressed for two thousand years.

True mystery helps to explain reality. We see this in science, with mysteries such as those of quantum physics, such as entanglement, wave particle duality and uncertainty. These are mysteries because science has an axiom that the universe operates according to consistent laws of cause and effect, but it is so far impossible to fully explain the operation of cause and effect at subatomic level. It remains a mystery for our current level of knowledge. But no genuine scientists say that the answer to the mystery is that a supernatural God breaks the laws of physics. Rather, it is that science does not fully understand the laws of the universe, and is not even sure if these laws can be fully comprehended, in view of the difficulty of observing things at subatomic scale.

I had to move away from God belief to understand what God actually represents. And having moved away, and learned what the God concept represents as a personification of the human sense of mystery towards existence, I can never return to theism. I am practicing the religious function right now as an atheist, the actual religious function that theists largely neglect. The religions, Christianity almost first and foremost, merely block it out of vision to where no one really understands the true mystery of it all the function isn't necesarily working. And so the religious / mystical function can serve as the worst enemy of organized religion as we now understand it. People discover the truth, the truth sets them free, and here we are. Indepth study of the God concept levels theism to waste in that way. And I expect this reality and realization only to increase in society over time and evolution while knowledge and awareness continue to increase...

Belief is epistemically corrupt. To say you believe something when you lack evidence for it, and when it conflicts with the balance of probabilities, is just blind faith, and entirely unethical, a cancer for logic. The mystical function, in Campbell's terms as I understand it, looks to explain life against the mystery of existence. Supernaturalism is not an explanation, but a pretence of explanation with no basis. Accepting that the universe is mysterious, and seeing that the causal operation of physical law is axiomatic, leaves no space for a god of the gaps. Rather, God should be seen as a description of how time is surrounded and enframed by eternity, in logic, physics and ethics.

jRup wrote:This discussion, both serious and amiable, reminds me that my 'research' lists religion and its associated depths and surfaces, as at its core, entertainment. Were we able to accept it as such, it could be a relatively pleasant, productive interaction. A game an individual plays with himself, then shares.

jRup, do you not see a small contradiction between a discussion that is serious and one that is for entertainment? Entertainment is at essence something that does not matter, while serious discussion is about formulating a common understanding. I think rather there is something exciting about working towards a coherent understanding of religion, but to call it a game removes any sense of importance.

It is filled with twisting trails and astonishing discoveries, with the kind of wonder Albert Ple calls will-power (not the 'nose-to-the-grindstone' slavery which evolved into a Protestant 'ethic') - a pleasurable, exciting mental and physical 'occupation' taken from early Islamic scholarly thought (from the old Sanskrit 'wel' as in well being). Learning, understanding, debate, imagining, questioning, supposing, letting that Einstein brand of mysticism take form, devotion to the notion - all leading to scriptural praise for 'the scholar' who is elevated above all other devotees.

Looking up Ple, I see he is a French theologian who wrote on Freud and Aquinas. I confess that French thought tends to leave me cold precisely because of the lack of seriousness you describe, although I feel some of them cannot tell if they are serious or not. I opened the thread on mythicism as deconstruction of Christianity by citing Derrida, but he is a classic of the French thinker who speaks in elliptical oracles of extreme obscurity, making language into a game. The Einstein brand of mysticism is quite different, grounded rigorously in observation, rather than seeing culture as self referential.

Of course nowadays 'the scholar' of many faiths studies only one book only for the purpose of domination and has forgotten all about 'entertainment' ... What I have seen here has that more genial flavor. Such exchanges expand our minds, make us work at the thing we enjoy so much. Science keeps us constantly flexible, nimble, ever adding new material to the journey. It takes courage and self-confidence to embrace change, because most religion is designed to instill dependency yet also fear and mistrust.

I still feel that 'entertainment' is not the right word. In contrasting it to domination you make an important point, but not of religion as a game, rather as a serious reverence and awe in the face of the numinous. Geniality is important as a mark of humility and respect, but should not be misinterpreted as being light hearted.

I am reminded of two tribes which have never heard of religion, greed or warfare. One lives in remote Southeast Asia, the other in the Amazon. Both live under a vast forest cover and seldom see the sun, let alone the stars. The early part of their day is spent gathering food and completing simple chores. Then they eagerly huddle together, men and women, children and pets. They spend the rest of the day telling each other of their dreams, of the fantastic voyages they each took while apart. Not much 'drama', just comfort, mutual support, pleasure. Living

I often think that primitive life is happier than civilization. With few material needs it is possible to devote time to the pleasure of deepening relationships. You may call that entertainment, but the difference is that modern entertainment is more about an escape from the gloom and drudgery of existence into a world of fantasy, whereas the joy of authentic worship is about understanding reality with greater intensity.

tat tvam asi wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:How I see it is that astrotheology shows that metaphysics has to be grounded in physics.

This statement alone is cause for confusion. But I understand the entire paragraph completely and you did a good job of explaining it Robert.

Yes, many would assume that metaphysics and physics are in fundamental contradiction, so the idea that physics could produce a metaphysics looks odd. Again, my thinking on this topic goes back to Martin Heidegger, the great systematic existentialist, with his trinity of nature, language and truth as scientific types of the old father, son and spirit. These themes are grounded in physical understanding, but cannot possibly be exhausted by physical description alone, and to be discussed require an entry into a sort of mythic realm. As soon as we ask a question like 'what is truth?' those who know the Bible are immediately confronted by the image of a messianic statement of truth to power, and its critique of pragmatic corruption. It is as though to say that truth has no meaning is an abdication of human existence.

This means that the metaphysics of theology and myth largely originates in efforts to explain nature, but these efforts gradually got detached from the original intent, until that intent was largely lost to sight and memory.

This is entirely true. We can see the progression through time where ancient peoples knowingly mythologized their observations of nature. This brought in God or Neter (forces of nature) symbolism in Egypt which were continually used and re-used, hybridized again and again, and eventually found their way into the common era with the Hermetic writings, Gnosticism, and Christianity. These religious movements were further and further removed from the original intent of mythologizing nature to where the flashy symbolic images were mistaken as literally gods and eventually Yahweh as transcendent of nature and the cosmos completely.

This idea that the original intent was to mythologize nature reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci, and his vision of the earth as a macrocosm of the human microcosm. This way of thinking has always existed, but is far harder to express coherently than either the pure materialism of science or the pure spiritualism of alienated religion. It is about bringing everything together into an integrated vision of the whole. It seems such a vision informed Christianity, providing the impetus for its astrotheological imagery, but it was not expressed with sufficient clarity to be properly remembered, and the cosmic vision dissolved like a dream, with the literal story the fragmented memory.

Yet, in analyzing a question such as the relation between Christ and the Sun, we can find the origin of the salvation motifs in ancient nature worship. So the physical observation of the revival of the sun each day and year led to a metaphysical representation of the sun as a god, and then this metaphysical idea separated over time from its natural origin. Yet, it is the natural physical origin that gives the metaphysical idea its power, with an ongoing subconscious resonance among believers, who do not understand what it is that they worship. They idolise Jesus Christ as an imaginary man, when really it is the constant regeneration of nature at the source of the myth that gives the hidden impetus to the religion.

This holds true whether or not any historical person was used as a base for the solar myth. In a reality where we observe and retain constant natural cycling, over and over again, there is something in the way of a strong psychological power involved in using the dying and rising motif. They've confused the living hell out of the motif in Christianity, but nevertheless the power of the appeal of the religion points squarely back at the writers use of the solar cycle and organic life cycle of the annual year. The Great Year is more obscure and for the benefit of the priest class more or less, but still a powerful psychological tool nonetheless. They bring in political issues of the time to the table which also tugs at peoples heart strings in powerful ways. The passion story can be so dramatic to the point of making people cry their eyes out about what hardships Jesus had to endure. But we're talking about the metaphorical life and death of the sun when all is stripped bare. The three day solstice and the spring equinox three months later. We are indeed looking at a myth based on continuing the life cycle mythologies of antiquity, the ones that really were based on basic observation of nature as you've said. And it seems fitting to me that society should come full circle like this and suddenly wake up to the fact that these stories aren't meant to be taken so literally and historically accurate in the first place. It's a rather nasty lie to zealously go around promoting them as such, although the proselytizers may be completely convinced that they're doing the right thing and not lying to anyone at all.

I actually don't think it holds if we regard a historical person as the basis of the solar myth. There is enough evidence of the Pauline construction of Christ as a necessary being emerging from the encounter of the Jewish tradition with the wider world that the traditional idea of a historical Jesus can be seen as a delusional distraction, causing readers to fail to see the truth.

They're locked into a sub-conscious tangle where the underlying truth of a cyclic nature reality experienced by all is drawing them in, but they have no idea what the truth factor deep in the myth really entails. It's not true that some magical Jewish God-Man died and rose from the grave in three days (in a literal factual sense) in any provable way, but it is true and completely provable that the sun stops moving visibly for three days at the solstices and the reverses direction - which is what the myth is really playing off of. I drive to work every morning on a road that faces due east, much as the Sphinx and cause ways at the Giza necropolis are oriented (NE, E, SE). I read through Buvaul's "The Message of the Sphinx" and took in all that he noted about the Giza necropolis and how the cause ways are oriented to the sun's southern to northern journey through the year when looking towards the east. I experience the very same view here and I've spent the last year consciously paying attention to the annual journey of the sun from the furthest southeast point (to the right of the road) to the furthest northeast point (to the left of the road). And this month it's southern journey away from the summer solstice is bringing the sun, or Jesus / Horus if you will, closer and closer to the point of true east. The bright morning solar star.

This sense that the reality of cosmic cycles, especially the day and the year, provides an instinctive psychological framework, opens this problem of how we can psychoanalyse religion as responding to an unconscious need, converting the sense of salvation coming from natural relationship to the sun into a supernatural narrative of relationship to Jesus. Your story of orientation illustrates how a natural sense of place and time creates a feeling of belonging. Imagine how the Egyptians celebrated the annual heliacal rising of Sirius, with the star sending a shaft of light deep into the inner sanctum of the temple and lighting up the giant emerald there, in a ceremony repeated every year for thousands of years.

This is such a simple observation. It's easily mapped out by anyone paying attention to it. And it would seem that this annual journey - witnessed over and over and over again - must have some subconscious value in everyone's mind. Or at least a lot of peoples minds. Once you catch it then it's a real "aha" moment. The myth of Jesus makes so much more sense when understanding all of this astronomical history behind mythological / religious evolution. I think it's more than clear that it all started out as natural physical observation greatly personified and given metaphysical decoration with time. But I understand all of that as an atheist outside of religion, not a theist within religion. There's no reason that atheists shouldn't or wouldn't be able to understand mythology in these terms. Yeah there are still a lot out there that still don't quite get it, but this knowledge is only gaining awareness on the internet and elsewhere. There's plenty of debate about it and we have ZG part 1 mainly to thank for the world wide burst in publicity (And Murdock to thank for inspiring much of ZG part 1). Atheism seems to be adapting to the debate with pseudo-skeptics bringing opposition and the more learned understanding what becomes of the pseudo-skeptics arguments. GodAlmighty certainly tanned some rears on youtube with his "The differences outweigh the similarities" series. The argument was rendered meaningless just like that. Those atheists which you oppose are easily refuted. But what about the mythicist atheists? How exactly are they refute d in your opinion Robert?

The issue with atheism is that there are many strands of thought that accept the truth of science and the falsity of supernatural fantasy, but the differences between these strands have not been a focus of sufficient attention. One of the key assumptions in the Dawkins school of atheism goes back to Karl Popper's critique of Plato, in Popper's argument that any effort to gain a wholistic understanding, a cosmological sense of relation to the universe, is intrinsically suspect and dangerous. Dawkins retains, in my opinion, a close connection to the logical positivist view that there is no meaning outside science. Put so starkly few would agree, but when you scratch the surface of scientists they tend to the view that the meaning in non-scientific pursuits is identical to their objective scientific content.

I would not say Popper is easily refuted, because he is right that wholism readily morphs into mysticism and irrationalism. There seems to be something intrinsically mythical and religious about the idea that humans can articulate how we relate to the universe. This idea of relatedness links to the etymology of the word religion as 're-binding' and to the idea of rational connection in the Greek metaphysics of the logos or word. If language aims to speak the truth of nature, it synthesizes the empirical observations of science into a unitary theory of value. Many atheists might consider a statement like that nothing but word salad, but it illustrates how difficult it is to speak about human relation to reality in any objective and general way.

Where I have difficulty with some mythicist atheist opinions is that I remain of the view that the story of Christ can be rehabilitated, within a scientific world view, as a basis for ethics. The Sermon on the Mount and the Last Judgment remain sublime moral teachings that are entirely subversive towards our fallen world, containing language that speaks truth to power, just as Jesus purportedly did before Pilate. If Christianity started from natural myths, it can return to them, stripped of the supernatural weeds. The validity of the ethics of Christ is entirely separate from the problem of how these stories were twisted by the church. It seems plausible that even the Gospel writers were aware that their text concealed hidden cosmic meanings, yet those meanings have been entirely forgotten and denied by the church. I think many mythicists are bitter about church delusion, to the extent that they find it impossible to reclaim the original meaning of the stories as something that remains vital for our world today. Those who now control those stories for venal secular purposes have no right to monopolise them. Acknowledging the positive power within the Christian values, including faith, love and hope, is a starting point for debate about the real meaning of the text that carries those values.

Of course there is contradiction. It is an essential part of mystery and inquiry, no? The two, three and four sides (or more) to every question make for the levels of 'pleasure' one achieves in answering, and leads to the next puzzle. That 'process', I think, is a natural one for us, and is probably what seduces our young into video games. Never mind that they are amoral, violent and ultimately self destructive ... it is the 'achieving' of one solution/level which leads to another. Thus game makers (indeed Madison Avenue) use our curiosity to imprison us. The same is true for our 'arena' experience (Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion - The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle). We are encouraged to choose up sides and root mindlessly for the home team, political party, etc. This is what is commonly called 'entertainment', most of it playing on our fears, anger and ignorance. Okay, so entertainment is not the right word ... many 'believe' that throwing themselves on the mercy of church, state, etc., is a duty. Others use prayer to threaten, bargain or beg ... others have been made to believe they are worthless and deserve pain, punishment, etc., (masochists, etal) and find 'pleasure' in that. Some even learn to enjoy killing on this or that battlefield and it is called The Great Game.

What I argue (hopefully) is that this kind of interplay is the opposite. I hear questions being asked and respectfully answered with new/other information and a general 'expansion' of the subject at hand. There is a welcome generosity in that, even if it is missing some of the more serious overtones. It is welcoming and open. These are practical effects of the hard work/game (shouldn't work be pleasant, even passionate?) you all have played as individuals.

I was as much attracted to this discussion by its civility as anything and surely talking, exchanging ideas and experience qualifies as entertainment. I'd say it is one of the best uses of modern technology like the internet. I apologize that I have not figured out how to "quote" - I see that it makes following a discussion much easier - I'll try again next time.

The two, three and four sides (or more) to every question make for the levels of 'pleasure' one achieves in answering, and leads to the next puzzle. That 'process', I think, is a natural one for us, and is probably what seduces our young into video games. Never mind that they are amoral, violent and ultimately self destructive ... it is the 'achieving' of one solution/level which leads to another.

It is natural. Our puppetteer strings are neurochemicals. "Psychological addiction" is nothing more than wanting another hit of dopamine of serotonin. In fact, you're addicted to everything you 'want' to do, but some of these wants are so subtle that they fly below the radar. The suspense of curiosity is like sex, with the act of finding out being the climax.

Those neurotransmitters are primary components in many emotions. Not necessarily dopamine and serotonin in particular, but the category in general. They give you motive. Even if that motive is to believe. There doesn't need to be any sort of reason to belief in something. If there is an emotional attachment, that is stronger than reason depending on your neurochemical makeup.

Locate and nurture the feeling of "discovery" and "enlightenment", but quell and repress the feeling of "knowing" or "believing", and you'll fit right in. In other words, there are emotions that cause people to latch too strongly onto some conclusion, when they should instead be enjoying the unveiling of new information. Enjoy the process not the conclusion.


Sorry for all that. I'm exploring some philosophy of emotion and had to respond through that perspective. To quote, use the mouse to highlight the appropriate text, then either right click/select copy, or hit CTRL+C. Then create a new post. Then right click in the box and select Paste, or hit CTRL+V. Open a new tab to find someone else's post if you've already started typing and can't find the post you wish to respond to. You can copy/paste between tabs.

Then highlight the selected text and hit the "quote" button above your post-in-progress. If you wish to reference someone, you have to modify it a bit. I'm sure there's an easier way, but I type their name in after the word QUOTE like this {Quote="Interbane"}. Experiment and edit your post as needed. Use smileys to irritate dumb people.

jRup wrote:I have not figured out how to "quote" - I see that it makes following a discussion much easier

How to quote.

There is a little box at the top right of every post called QUOTE. It has an orange arrow to make it easier to find. If you click on QUOTE it automatically produces the text in a reply box, with the name of the person you are quoting. To insert comments in between quoted comments, after you have hit the quote button, put the cursor in the spot in the text on an empty line below where you want to comment and hit the quote button in the row of options at the top, and move the / from the first to the second set of brackets. Then hit home shift-end control c. Then start typing in between the two sets of brackets. To make a second comment after another part of the quoted comment, put the cursor where you want to write and hit control v.

Interbane wrote:

Atheism makes no effort to see how the religious imagination could have evolved from an original accurate perception, suggesting instead that the original source for all metaphysics is delusory fantasy, as seen in the degraded supernatural forms of contemporary religion.

That's a straw man of individual atheists. I've spent a great deal of time thinking about such things. It's not that I reject the ideas emotionally, or that I'm overly invested in rejecting them. I see such attempts as false for good reason. First, men write stories. Even if one or two things from history were truly evidence of metaphysical events, they'd be drops in an ocean of fiction. In fact, the precedent is so high that I'd wonder at the motive of anyone who claimed that those couple of drops were different than the ocean. Is it possible? Sure. Is the burden of proof massive? Yes.

It is not a straw man, it is an accurate description of mainstream scientific atheism, especially Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who do see all metaphysics as delusory fantasy. You have to distinguish between metaphysics and supernatural fantasy. For example, explaining the true nature of love or justice is not possible through science alone, because these ideas intrinsically involve the psychological sense of human relationships, and shift according to cultural beliefs. Yet, if we want to claim that love or justice do in fact have a real stable meaning, we need some method for comparison of phenomena. This is where the modern European philosophical tradition of phenomenology is valuable. By respecting the integrity of ideas, phenomenology provides a method of analysis that has a continuity with older metaphysics, while rejecting the supernatural detritus. So, I would say there is no possibility of "evidence of metaphysical events", in view of the weight of science, but there is real evidence of metaphysical ideas, with the sense arising in myth and religion that ethical concepts have a stable meaning. Dawkins would likely say that a metaphysical idea that is grounded in physics is not metaphysical, but that is just because he is so intent on restricting religious thought to the simple fundamental box that he can easily refute.

If we say for example that the myth of Christ originates in worship of the sun, we have a scientific research program that can look at the evolution of the belief, and aim to find the point of departure where the myth separates from its natural origin.

Secondly, there's simply no need to hypothesize anything metaphysical. Just as there's no need to hypothesize that trees grow upward because the ground is pressurized. The "spot is filled", we have explanations in the areas that people wish to insert metaphysics.

No we don't. Science lacks a coherent theory of value, which is the space filled by metaphysics. This is why Christians don't like science, because they see scientists claiming that observation is sufficient for ethics, whereas what is really needed for ethics is shared community ideals. The observation that ideals cannot be understood without detailed study creates the need to simplify them for popular use. This is where myth comes in, converting the vision of the seers into a story that can provide public purpose and stability.

This means that the metaphysics of theology and myth largely originates in efforts to explain nature, but these efforts gradually got detached from the original intent, until that intent was largely lost to sight and memory.

I don't think the efforts ever deviated from the original intent. I believe the efforts were right on course the entire time, and the fiction that was produced mixed fact and fantasy in the same way that men recombine ideas every single day all over the Earth. Even after dogma was ossified, the followers believed they had an explanation to all nature.

Well of course the efforts deviated from the intent. If we consider there was an intent to develop a new myth that would allegorise the sun as Christ, the deviation kicked in with the claim that Jesus of Galilee walked and talked and went to the toilet. After this carnalisation happened, the belief in an explanation of all nature was demonstrably false. But observation of that deviation does not show it did not mutate from an original accurate vision of nature.

The one clue that always rings the alarm bells are motive. Religion usurps personal motive better than anything I've ever seen. Perhaps it has something to do with what Neitzsche said about the "Ultimate Concern". That geological periods can be demarcated by the movements of the stars doesn't mean the ancients understood this. The fiction they've produced would look exactly the same as it does now.

I don't think anyone claims the ancients understood geological periods, which are much longer than the ages of history. The ancients did believe that their concept of the aeon or world could be demarcated by the stars, and this is why the myth of Christ arose as marking the point when the equinox shifted from Aries to Pisces. This observation of precession provides a natural ground for the myth of Christ, a ladder that was kicked away when the church had climbed to the top of it.

If, at some point in history, an oral story was told that passed along knowledge of the previous ice age, I'd have a hard time believing it survived in any semblance of it's original self after as little as 500 years. Once written, it would have a bit better fidelity, but would still morph far too much. If there is even a whisper of such wisdom in the bible that was gleaned from firsthand experience at some point 20,000 years ago then passed along orally, it would be extraordinary. I don't think people are capable of passing a message with such fidelity without objectifying the knowledge. Using stars as "bullet points" to summarize stories would have the same faults, all meaningful content is within the heads of humans, and subject to those faults.

It is entirely possible that the story of the flood is just such a very old myth. At the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, the ocean was more than 100 metres below its current level. The best places to live were all by the sea. These were all inundated by the gradual rising of the sea as the ice sheets melted, producing a world wide flood.

Using the stars is not just subjective, because it describes something stable and regular that every one can see. David Ulansey, in his study of Mithraism, argues that the bringing of knowledge of precession to the Hellenistic world by Hipparchus in the second century BC renewed a basis for speculation about the zodiac ages, with the 'slaying of the bull' in the central symbol of the Tauroctony emerging as a representation of the transition from the age of Taurus to the Age of Aries in about 2000 BC. The story of Ulysses escaping from the cyclops, the one eyed giant Polyphemus, by holding on to the belly fleece of a ram as it walked out of the cyclops' cave, can also be read as allegory for the movement of the equinox point from Taurus to Aries, with Ulysses as another hero of the Age of Aries.

On an even more speculative note, the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses and the Israelites at the Exodus could be an even older mythic distortion of the original exodus of humanity from Africa in 80,000 BC, when precession of the equinox caused the mouth of the Red Sea to dry up enabling our ancestors to walk from Djibouti to Yemen. I do not think it is impossible that this major event must have been entirely forgotten, and it could well have survived in mythic form to appear in the Bible. Please note, this mention of precession is entirely scientific and I would be happy to explain it in more detail if asked.

There is no reason to believe the ancients passed along such knowledge from ages past. There is only motive. They would be telling stories about the stars at any point in time, with all the stories understood as fiction. To cherry pick one single part of this collection of fiction because it can be interpreted in a way that fits into a hypothesis is no better than religious rationalization. Why not consider the sun as a chariot? If the goal is to harmonize religion with "anything", you'll find a cherry that works best for you. That includes harmonizing metaphysics with physics.

The goal is to harmonize religion with the actual process of time. Earth has three main cycles, the day, the year and the Great Year. In the ancient vision of the crystal spheres of the planetary heavens, precession was observed as a slow movement of the stars outside the orbit of Saturn. Reading the Bible against the hypothesis that this natural celestial observation provides an organizing principle is actually an entirely coherent and productive method, explaining many mysteries that now appear simply absurd. The Great Year provides the slow observable cosmic framework of geocentric physics, and is now well understood by astronomy. If we assess metaphysical claims as reflecting a conscious perception or unconscious intuition of this real natural process, we find they can be grounded in physics.

It is not a straw man, it is an accurate description of mainstream scientific atheism, especially Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who do see all metaphysics as delusory fantasy.

There is a spectrum of beliefs that generalizations do not apply to, and that goes for both sides of the fence. I'm guilty of it also. I've made an effort to harmonize metaphysical beliefs in the past, so the making of no effort is another generalization.

So, I would say there is no possibility of "evidence of metaphysical events", in view of the weight of science, but there is real evidence of metaphysical ideas, with the sense arising in myth and religion that ethical concepts have a stable meaning.

I don't see ideas being separate from a medium. There must be a medium, and even then it is nothing more than the medium unless some agent is capable of decoding it. I believe part of the problem with our tendency to think of ideas as beyond the physical is that they have always been impossible to reduce to the medium of the brain. So our language has evolved in lockstep with this metaphysical understanding. Our language has many parts which imply metaphysics simply because it's always been a common referent. The very act of thinking is what underlies the decoding of an idea(from whatever medium, written or spoken). So the process seems intuitively nonphysical as we are the agents doing the decoding. But ideas are nothing more than the arrangement of neural connections manifesting in an apparently nonphysical form in our minds.

Science lacks a coherent theory of value, which is the space filled by metaphysics.

Science lacks a theory of gravity as well, at least as far as I know. That does not mean it is out of reach of science. I think values can be deduced from game theory, but it would require knowledge that we are very far away from being able to acquire. It also requires some sort of axiom, as you've pointed out to me. But such axioms are required in science as well, if you'd call them that. We must trust inductive reasoning, and for that reason science lacks any claims to certainty.

If we consider there was an intent to develop a new myth that would allegorise the sun as Christ, the deviation kicked in with the claim that Jesus of Galilee walked and talked and went to the toilet.

What makes you think the intent was allegory? It is allegorical in hindsight, but the authors may very well have believed these things. That the stories of Christ have astrotheological parallels may have confirmed to them that the stories were true, since nature seemed to match closely. I do believe some of them would have been intentionally falsifying parts, but accumulation of story elements can happen with each part believing the previous minor additions and accentuations, simply because they have no former story to use as a baseline.

I

t is entirely possible that the story of the flood is just such a very old myth. At the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, the ocean was more than 100 metres below its current level. The best places to live were all by the sea.

It's possible, but an unnecessary hypothesis. The natural progression of the "idea" of a flood is that it is larger and floods everything. It is simple recombination, as long as a flood was experienced by someone around that time. Floods are common occurences.

Please note, this mention of precession is entirely scientific and I would be happy to explain it in more detail if asked.

Earth's wobble and it's corresponding effects intrigues me. But I don't see any merit in thinking we had any way of knowing about it let alone passing it along. People are so apt to create fiction, great deals of fiction.