Joshpantera

Cycles of time, world ages.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ellinas said:

One point - I was not suggesting in my last post that cycles cannot simply be calculated.  I have no doubt that they can and were.  My point is rather that, if we are to take it that these cycles influence society (by whatever means), there has to be observation and analysis on our part of the effect on society, preferably over a number of them, via historical records.  That is difficult enough in relation to the periods represented by each zodiacal sign, and quickly becomes impossible on a longer cycle.

 

 

It may be that I'm not getting what you're saying here. What is discussed in the videos like The Great Year is how history has corresponded to the cycle. From the dawn of civilization we were in the descending side of the Yugas, going down to what is the end and beginning of the next cycle. And they show how sophistication way back like in Egypt digressed over time parallel with this descending cycle. It bottomed out right into what we refer to as the dark ages. The Roman Empire is looked at as the sort of the last bit of the old high civilizations of the last great year. In accordance with the ascending Yuga's, came our rise up out of the dark ages. And we're now in the dwapara yuga ascending side of the cycle, headed towards the higher ages. This turn over into the age of Aquarius is supposed to bring much in the way of advancement, per this esoteric system of mapping sociological trends. All I'm doing here is taking what's out there already and considering it. 

 

Now I have no intention of making assertions for astrology within a spiritual atheist context. That really has no place in spiritual atheism because astrology is too supernatural oriented. But by utilizing the symbolism in some way it would align it with the new age. It would mark it as aquarian age advanced thinking. If I were to make a claim, I assume that I'd claim that we're growing out of supernaturalism and advancing into understanding the naturalistic explanations for everything.

 

This is where I'd be competitive against all of the variety's of new age fantasy that's out there now. Imagine something like all the variety of beliefs that were out around the beginning of the common era, which were eventually bull dozed by orthodox christianity. I'd bull doze a lot of nonsense like the Ramtha Cult, much of the shit on What The Bleep Do We Know?, and most of the Atlantian and Alien new age shit that we see around today, all of which generally sees itself as something of the new age and aimed at the age of Aquarius. There's a ton of nonsense out there that could be potentially steam rolled and bulldozed in the way that Sam Harris has done in his book on consciousness. It was pro consciousness, which is a new age topic of sorts, but he goes at it sensibly, logically, and appeals to sound reason while treading through it. 

 

I envision that example as what could potentially engulf and consume much new age content out there in the world now, and do a better job in terms of popularity because of the fine line walk through with sound reason. And this could have water bearing man and lion symbolism decorated all around it. Basically claiming the new age. Owning it. Making it clear that this is new thought, for the new age, and not very unreasonable like all of the other stuff. I'm talking about crafting a far superior new age spirituality head and shoulders above the snake oil peddlers who are out there now gaming for their own place in the new age. And to be honest, it's dam aggressive. 

 

3 hours ago, Ellinas said:

Also, don't assume that my emphasis on the social aspect is a criticism of your speculation per se.  After all, I'm the avowed theist here - speculation is something of a speciality in that field.  My thought process is that I suspect you'll have to go some way down that road to make this viable as a defensible aspect of spirituality, let alone one that others might adopt.  The speculation needs a foundation, and that appeals to me as the most likely candidate.

 

Your claim of avowed theism falls into my interests here. Shall we investigate how my thoughts would interact with someone like you who sees them self as not christian, but theistic? I can rehash a very old idea that I never quite developed properly and put on the back burner years ago. 

 

Nucleo-theism: the central god belief. 

 

And it's simply to claim that what people have always meant by "god," is simply the totality of existence itself. That's the core or nucleus of all theistic belief. And that's because god is a way of talking about the absolute, the ultimate, the unknowable. That's the totality that we're talking about when talking an absolute god. So let's call it what it is, and then go from there. How might Nucleo-theistic philosophy apply to popular theism and atheism, both? 

 

Polytheism - One totality of existence (supreme god) divided into many sub sets of existence (lower pantheon gods). 

 

Monotheism - One totality of existence, with no focus on the sub divisions of existence. 

 

Pantheism - One totality of existence, viewed as whole in it's fullness. 

 

Atheism - One totality of existence, not personified in any way and taken on pure naturalistic terms. 

 

Now any one of these labels could adopt Nucleo-theistic philosophy. They could choose to view god for what it actually is at the bottom of it all, at the core, nucleus or foundation.

 

I would claim, very strongly, that this is the way to build a foundation upon solid ground and not sand. We all know what it's like to have grown up with our foundations built upon sand and then watched them crumble apart. And it includes atheism in the mix, rather than excluding it. There could easily be Nucleo-theistic atheists, as well as theists. And down to this level, the hope is that tensions and fighting that arise from confusion, "Babylon" as I term it, dissolve. I take the term "Babylon the Great" to mean "The Great Confusion," and per re-interpreting myth I can say that "Babylon the Great" has now fallen. The confusion stems from not seeing and identifying what the gods even are in the first place.

 

The story of Babel is a story of the confusion of language. Hence, "The Great Confusion." We can topple it down. And we can do so by acknowledging things like comparative mythology and religion. Looking at very obvious clues about what the human minds who were mythologizing, were reaching for from the outset, either known or unknown to them as they did it. Like the inscription to Isis that reads, "I Isis am all that ever was, is, or shall ever be. No mortal man hath unveiled me. My first fruits was the Sun..."

 

What is this? What was, is, and always will be? What gave rise to the Sun? What mystery is so deep that no mortal man has never unveiled it? It's existence, and the deep mystery underlying all of existence. And YHWH comes in behind this same type of mythologizing. I can make all variety of argument in favor of the interpretation of the gods as existence as a whole, and it's sub categories. And by calling it what it is, potentially ending a great deal of confusion and conflict about gods. 

 

That's just one tiny bit from my reinterpreting mythology in a way suitable for the modern era and for modern, advancing minds. And it's an appeal to unity, wholeness, interconnection and many of the positive aspects that comes from deep pantheism. But pantheism is far too loaded a term and label. So I literally tried pioneering an entirely new label that has no such baggage attached in which to overcome. And it has to be all inclusive! Atheism can not be absent from the philosophy. This is like a spiritual oriented attempt at a theory of everything. 

 

How does this sound to some one like you who counts yourself as a theistic thinker? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



Well, the terminology is such that I've never applied to my thought processes.  However...

 

You say "And it's simply to claim that what people have always meant by "god," is simply the totality of existence itself. That's the core or nucleus of all theistic belief. And that's because god is a way of talking about the absolute, the ultimate, the unknowable. That's the totality that we're talking about when talking an absolute god."

 

Yep, that's pretty well how I see it.  I equate the "ultimate" with a concept of universal life and consciousness, which I postulate on the basis that nothing as dead and unconscious as matter could have life and consciousness unless there was some basic principle of life and consciousness underpinning all existence.  I have no view on personality at this level.

 

You refer to "Polytheism - One totality of existence (supreme god) divided into many sub sets of existence (lower pantheon gods)."

 

Again, pretty well how I see it.  I maintain a distinction between "god" and "the gods".  Assuming that discrete consciousness is no less persistent than ultimate consciousness, I would view the idea of "the gods" as another form of that consciousness - which ultimately leaves room for concepts of "the ancestors" and any number of persistent discrete consciousnesses, with connections between them.

 

I see nothing in your discussion of Babel and Babylon with which to necessarily disagree, though it's an application of these ideas I've not adopted or really thought through.

 

You say: "... it's an appeal to unity, wholeness, interconnection and many of the positive aspects that comes from deep pantheism"

 

The idea of a web of reality is central to my outlook.  I believe it to be observationally true.  What I do has consequences.  Ultimately, I just throw pebbles in the proverbial pond and watch the ripples expand.  What you describe is, I think, just that expanded to a more "cosmic" level.

 

And I have no problems with the idea of atheist spirituality - though perhaps it's not me that needs to be convinced on that score.  Many an atheist may think differently.  Monotheists are likely to be too wedded to transcendence to take kindly to this, as these thoughts strike me as more consistent with an immanent concept of deity - and possibly an impersonal concept.

 

As to mythology, I see it as nothing more than a record that combines elements of garbled history and ancient understanding or interpretation of the nature of god and the gods.  Any literalism is nonsensical.  It needs to be viewed academically, in terms of historical aspects, and as poetic in terms of what it tells us of our existence and our relationship to the realities of our existence (whatever they may be).

 

These are just off the cuff initial thoughts.  It's a different line to the rest of this thread.  I'll leave it to you whether you wish to follow this up here or in another thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've been thinking about trying to finish working on Nucleo-theism. It's only relevant here in that I could possibly plug it in as the framework from which to launch an Aquarian age belief system competitive in the arena of world belief and non-belief. I was able to relate my thoughts in a way that you could identify as similar to your own. That's more or less the drift of how it goes. There's much to be organized and finished, though. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I await developments with interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point is that what people have expressed as god takes us back to existence itself. Existence is both immanent and transcendent, omnipresent, and basically all of the catch phrases assigned to a supreme god. I just used common sense to deduce this across the board, or "trans-theological" perspective. And that's Nucleo-theism: a trans-theological perspective. 

 

What I had not plugged in yet, is the notion of existence itself being a broad web of various awareness taking place throughout. That's something that I delved into later after setting the Nucleo-theistic philosophy aside. And for the purpose of structuring something that can be acceptable to even atheism, I can't very well make any claim that can't be reasonably supported. Claiming that existence itself is awareness is something that Peter Russell has tackled and I have a thread about that. It's a good argument, but it's still on the side of speculative. 

 

I think that speaking of existence and leaving it there is best, because those who view existence as a manifestation of consciousness will see existence in those terms. But those who do not can look at it simply as the realm we exist in, and are composed of, without attaching something like consciousness to it. But what may happen going forward is that consciousness may get broken down much better by science in ways that bring more certainty to the table. What's obvious is that we are awareness itself, basically, and we, as awareness itself, have crafted these ancient myths in such a way that it's like a game of hide and seek that the realm of existence (through us) has been playing with itself. There's Alan Watts quotes that basically cover that issue in depth that I could refer to time and again. And a lot from Joseph Campbell. It's like the inscription to Isis that I quoted before - it's a way of getting the mind to think about the totality via a personification myth format. Who am I? Think about it. What is it that can be making these claims of itself? Think deep. These questions direct us back to the totality in very specific and direct ways. 

 

As to the Aquarian age, it's supposed to be a time of higher consciousness in terms of what the expectations are. So the consciousness stuff, even if presented as speculation, certainly has a place in the new age. It's just still very much a work in progress. Guys like Peter Russell and Sam Harris are pioneering that front. Some my look at them as prophets of the new age. And if I organized something good I'd love to get those two on board with what I'm reaching for here. That could bring with it popularity and exposure. But I'd have to convince them that it's a worthy cause to align themselves with. Just with what I've done so far it seems possible to draw in quite a few modern voices who I think would totally get it. But again, I'm going to have to pull out the drawing board after years of neglect and reconsider all of this again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I foresee a couple of issues.

 

Firstly, getting people on board with you runs a risk of treading on their egos.  As you seem to realize already, you may find you would need to package this in a way that makes it in their interests to support you, or get yourself well enough known beforehand to make you a desirable ally, so to speak. 

 

Secondly, I am uncertain quite how you are going to sell anything with a "theism" label to atheists.  Terminology can be as important as substance.

 

As regards consciousness, I'm not holding my breath on the idea of science getting to grips with it.  Mainstream reductionism seems unlikely to look beyond the complexities of interconnected electrochemical impulses - which seems, to my less than scientific mind, incapable of explaining consciousness and self identity in any terms other than seeing them as an illusion.  More radical ideas are unlikely to be seriously researched - even assuming anyone can construct a way to test them within the framework of current thinking.

 

Of course, existence and consciousness are not necessarily the same thing.  However, unless we wish to go down the (to my way of thinking somewhat bizarre) road of expending rather a lot of conscious effort on showing how unconscious we may be, I rather suspect that some connection between the two will have to be conceded.

 

It's fair to say that whether or not these ideas are seen as "Aquarian" is of little interest to me - at most a footnote as to a method of categorization.  I leave it to you to try to convince me otherwise, if you see any value in so doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Firstly, getting people on board with you runs a risk of treading on their egos.  As you seem to realize already, you may find you would need to package this in a way that makes it in their interests to support you, or get yourself well enough known beforehand to make you a desirable ally, so to speak. 

 


 

Secondly, I am uncertain quite how you are going to sell anything with a "theism" label to atheists.  Terminology can be as important as substance.

 

 

This whole thing is thought experimental, so I should be able to answer just about any question. And I'll try, sort of off the cuff. 

 

On the first, is it possible that by simply establishing a very sharp philosophy I could get their attention without first being famous myself? And their egos would have to be involved in it. In some way they'd be sharing in what ever credit could be given because a lot of it is based on their thoughts and philosophies in cooperation with my own. Peter Russell gave a raving review of Sam Harris, a world famous hard atheist. That's setting your ego aside on the part of Russell who's pantheistic more so than atheistic. Russell has some positive beliefs in the matter. But he's into transcending ego. At the same time, so is Sam Harris. He speaks much on that topic in his book on consciousness and spirituality without religion. We're all on the same general page here in terms of not believing in the gods of mythology literally, all the way around the room, and also emphasizing what mythology is and why people should know that.

 

This is a very academic based approach to human spirituality, free and clear of the shackles of religion, dogma, and the general "things" which are precisely supposed to abruptly end during the age of the Aquarius via esoteric tradition. All that matters is not whether that's true in an astrological sense, but that some people expect it to be true, and some people may have vested interests in seeing to it that it does come true, maintaining the "as above so below" axiom that has long influenced societies for thousands of years, under the radar at times. And largely contrary to what christians have admitted to. But even that is changing. Certain christians have tried to accept the astrotheology of the bible and look at it in their own ways. That's happened from the fall out of debate coming from the mythicists. Some christians are now looking at christianity differently and trying to look for ways of accepting the astrotheology of the bible. I know this from being a mod for DM Murdock for a long time before she passed away. I had to deal with this sort of stuff. So there's an element now in some christianity that could be potentially receptive to these ideas too, maybe. 

 

Secondly, it shouldn't put off atheists any more than natural pantheism. Because the philosophy contains elements of natural pantheism that also allows for some possibility of an idealistic pantheism too. And that these pantheisms can be applied to every other theistic outlook, including atheism. Who doesn't know that we're made up of more volume of space per atom, than particular matter? We are quite literally, "the universe." Space and matter, as we sit here living and breathing. 

 

That's unquestionable by today's standards. I argued that point one time at the old Richard Dawkins forum just to see if any hard atheists were naive enough to try and turn that statement around. And I knew it would piss some people off if they couldn't. It boiled down to two sort of mindless atheists on the forums who weren't clever enough to see themselves walking into a trap. And had to bow out by the end of it looking a little foolish. That was sparring. That was me pinning my New Age sounding philosophy against the hardest atheists that I thought I could find at the time. It was experimental on my part, but full of ferocity and vigor. And the vast majority of hard atheists were too smart to try and go as far as the two takers were willing to go. I weeded out the wankers and then came down hard on the whole thing. I was trying to establish an understanding from that point on that if I used New Age sounding terminology like, "we are the universe incarnate," trying to lash out at me for doing it would be futile. 

 

Bridging some of the gaps between atheist and pantheistic minded people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Of course, existence and consciousness are not necessarily the same thing.  However, unless we wish to go down the (to my way of thinking somewhat bizarre) road of expending rather a lot of conscious effort on showing how unconscious we may be, I rather suspect that some connection between the two will have to be conceded.

 


 

It's fair to say that whether or not these ideas are seen as "Aquarian" is of little interest to me - at most a footnote as to a method of categorization.  I leave it to you to try to convince me otherwise, if you see any value in so doing.

 

 

Not really, it is like a foot note in the way that I've applied it. You're correct for reading it that way. And that part would be off putting to atheists and most pantheists who are scientific minded and academic. So any allusion would be for fun, making light of academic research and studies and the cleverness of it all. It wouldn't be anything to do with thinking that astrology is credible. Just acknowledging a wide body of knowledge that pertains to mythology and religion, which is necessary to understand the two in full scope. The philosophy is about having a well rounded understanding of multidisciplinary approaches to world religion and human spirituality. The climax of research is acknowledging that the gods are ways of talking about existence itself, even to the extent that they refer to the transcendent. Some could look at that with a reverent attitude, while others could prefer to look at it in a completely secular way. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to add a quote from the awareness broken down thread, which is relevant to the Nucleo-theistic philosophy: 

 

 

Space itself does not seem to experience awareness in the way that a point particle would. And I think this is where we part ways with eastern mysticism that doesn't really take empirical data into consideration. What I'm looking at here is not traditional eastern mysticism that suggests everything is consciousness. The more we zero in the more it looks like the material world contains awareness, but only the material world so to speak and not the blank voids of space. The eastern mystics can only take so much credit in this focus, they just provided an intuitive place to start questioning the extent of consciousness, which can then narrow down to something more substantial. In this more modern way of thinking, space only experiences in awareness in so much as it's role as a medium of exchange between particles, as in it's role of volume in each atom. The energy and information is sent through space from one central point of experience to another. But it's the centralized points existing in space that do the experiencing, so to speak. This is a closer range of adjustment on the magnifying glass of inquiry. 

 

This direction lends another dynamic to the philosophy. It's about finding center, right on through. The awareness of everything is central in orientation. As finite beings we're experiencing a central, or nucleus oriented perception of existence, of the totality. And within our bodies, there are myriad centralized points of awareness essentially scaling down to the sub atom levels, per the direction I went in that thread. The god is existence itself, and we are that. It's not really a god at the bottom of it all, that's just a way that primitive man used to speak about the necessarily infinite and eternal realm we exist in, and are made out of. And by this measure, it's not some separate consciousness "out there," rather it's the awareness that seems to be inherent 'within nature' itself and gives rise to what we perceive as our own human consciousness. The Nucleo-theistic philosophy can explain the mind set of ancient myth makers and religionist's grasping at the mysteries of existence, and at the same time easily embrace and represent these directions on the primacy of consciousness and awareness that Russell and I seem to have honed in on, more or less intuitively. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that individual conscience is a discrete element of a greater consciousness is pretty well established as a way of understanding existence.  I'm not entirely sure how easily the ideas you set out will fit into that.  There is a similarity in that the awareness you describe could be seen in terms of elements within a universe that represents an accretion of all awareness; but the nature of that accretion is unclear and the idea that the universe is "aware" seems likely to have a rather academic sense to it.  But, as you say above, I suppose different people can see it in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good image here would be awareness rising up from more primitive forms at lower levels in nature, experiencing for a time, and then receding back down the scale again. That would summarize the birth through death process of intelligent life forms. The awareness is coming out of the natural universe itself, experiencing on every level of experience through the chain of awareness, and retracting back inward. 

 

Now this strongly plays off of the inward journey aspects coming from mythology and mysticism. Campebell lectured that Jesus ascending is not to be viewed as going out into space, but rather in the sense of the mystical inward journey of going within. That illustration I've given is exactly the notion of such an inward journey. Both really, the journey outward, and then the return. It lines up to the Heroes Journey. And it may assume that mystics have understood this for thousands of years. Although they could not have mapped it out against the sub atomic realm in the way I was doing. So it's sort of eastern mystical, but not entirely. And of course to the purpose of taking the New Age head on, eastern mystical ideas go with the territory in any case, so it seems fair game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting you should talk of inward journeys.  I know people on another site who believe it possible for the individual consciousness to journey in a spirit realm.  Although I've never developed the thought for the purpose of an in depth discussion, I've always tended to see it more as a journey within, as if our existence is on the surface or periphery rather than somewhere in the middle of whatever actually is.

 

If that makes sense...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting you should talk of inward journeys.  I know people on another site who believe it possible for the individual consciousness to journey in a spirit realm.  Although I've never developed the thought for the purpose of an in depth discussion, I've always tended to see it more as a journey within, as if our existence is on the surface or periphery rather than somewhere in the middle of whatever actually is.



 

If that makes sense...

 

Another thing is that Campbell mentioned mythology as related to biology, as in the internal workings and conflicts between organs coming out in myth. That's where is gets into Freud and Jung and works the psychology angle. Ultimately that's another focus on within, in a literal sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fascinating subject that greatly interest me. Evidence points to the existence of highly advanced civilizations that existed 12,000+ years ago that may have been destroyed by a cosmic event that virtually wiped out humanity, & almost all other life forms too. 

 

I have been exploring that possibility for some time now. I enjoyed the 2 posted videos at the beginning of this thread. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

There are some charts in the videos I've posted, but they are set up to the fall equinox and not the spring equinox: 

 

yuga-cycles-3.jpg

 

 

And out of this may come a powerhouse new edition to the world religion scene. I've been torn between whether a new religion will emerge or whether religion will fade out and people go on individually spiritual but not religious. It may be both, the new religion may entail personal individuality and leave behind the sheeple mentality, but at the same time remain a coherent belief system or religion if you will. After getting through Harris's book this all came to mind again and I started looking at the time table and considering how spirituality and religion will likely change and for what reasons. The fact that mainstream exposure is coming to spiritual atheism makes me think that it's possible that freethought, atheism and spiritual attitudes will all meet and merge going into the new age and potentially become the best suited method for spiritual expression among advancing, intellectual society. 

 

I've been giving this some thought the past week or so. I think that after almost all supernatural and superstitious belief systems are laid to rest that there would probably be serious devotion to physical and mental, health and well being. When people stop believing in an after life then the reasonable thing to do would be to extend your existing life as long as possible. I think any "power house religion " coming out of an age of enlightenment would have to include devotion to self and health. Not necessarily teaching a belief in a higher power but teaching a belief that we ourselves are the masters of our own lives. 

 

We are trained now that everything is "pre-destined", "ordered", and "set in stone". That God has his own plan and we bend to his will. I think that afterward people would be taught that we control our destinies, we can define our own goals, and nothing is set in stone but it that life is fluid and can change in an instant. Always strive for the best outcome but be ever prepared for failures and let downs because these things happen but can always be overcome.  It would probably put a lot of focus on preserving our planet also.

 

I believe whatever religion or belief would have to be a very encouraging one, and quite different than what we see today. It would really be nice to live in that type of environment rather than being taught you would never be able to live up to Jesus standards but since he loves you his awesomeness gives you a free pass to serve and worship him in heaven forever. Just as long as you serve, suffer, give over everything you have, and worship him now. 

 

I dunno....... now that I've deconverted. Thinking of a heaven where I have to serve and worship someone else 24/7 just seems a little shitty, ya know what I mean? 

 

Dark Bishop

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DarkBishop

 

I think you're right. It would have to be self and health, for individuals and the planet. And in terms of the Great Year and the higher ages, the notion of extended life spans and advanced technology and science seems to fit the model. We're down there just coming out of the bottom of the darkest ages. Those are the ages where things like the Jesus myth and all of the groveling around as if unworthy are addressed to. 

 

The real Revelation is to call an end to the dark ages and kick them off. 

 

Oddly enough, I was trying to explain an alternative interpretive suggestion to some family members while up one Saturday night having discussions. I was pointing out the kicking off the old ways of the dark ages aspect. That perhaps there'll be a strong push, something in the way of an aggressive and forceful letting go of the old ways in the near future or just beyond our time now. I was saying, "imagine all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth when people realize that the truths they've been given were never true to begin with?" 

 

Certainly this happens with all of us on an individual basis. We literally watch the walls of false truths collapse before our eyes. And then we here are those who have endured that, wailed and gnashed teeth over this or that, and then moved on to become the better for having the integrity to choose seemingly cold hard truths over sweet little lies. Imagine that times a massive amount of the population. And essentially resulting in a majority consensus on the issue of kicking off the old worn out ways...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not holding my breath on seeing supernatural belief being "laid to rest".  Its' nature may change, but I would be amazed were it to disappear altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm not holding my breath on seeing supernatural belief being "laid to rest".  Its' nature may change, but I would be amazed were it to disappear altogether.

 

What about by necessary extension of knowledge and awareness, which includes knowledge of things like how human beings created supernatural myths in the first place becoming better known and understood world wide, increasing with each consecutive generation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

What about by necessary extension of knowledge and awareness, which includes knowledge of things like how human beings created supernatural myths in the first place becoming better known and understood world wide, increasing with each consecutive generation? 

 

Firstly, I fear you under-estimate humanity's capacity for irrationality.  We already live in a world where there are plenty of educated (and prejudiced) supernaturalists.

 

Secondly, I'm far from convinced that the move toward materialistic and naturalistic thought is as general or as consistent as may be desirable.  Cultural prejudices die very hard.  What may seem likely in Europe and the US may seem very different in other countries and societies

 

Thirdly, there are those of us who take a view of the "supernatural" which acknowledges that myths are just that - but who still maintain a belief in something beyond the generally acknowledged reality whilst maintaining that it is not so very illogical, at least as long as the thought processes are acknowledged as speculative.

 

Fourthly, the "generational" view is very much in for the long haul, to the point that we are unlikely to know whether supernaturalism does indeed die out.  But I have it in mind that this is not the first time such things have been prophesied.  Religion may be the opium of the people, but there are still plenty of Russian Orthodox out there.

 

I agree that attitudes will change.  In some places there may be a lapse of supernaturalist thought.  But I suspect reports of its' demise are, at best, optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really simply though. Look around here. Look at ex-C. How did all of these people go from supernaturalists to naturalists? 

 

The answer is through deep thought and self education and awareness. Add to that interaction with peers. I think many people may greatly underestimate the power of the internet and all variety of public forums. These issues about christianity and religion gain in scope and popularity, rapidly. I was involved in the mythicist camp pretty early on as a forum mod and I've seen leaps and bounds in awareness in even the last five years. At one point these discussion were foreign to a lot of people who had no idea how to react to them. And I've seen all variety of apologetic adaptation over the course of my experience. They have to keep trying to come up with ways to stay in the game. 

 

And then these issues radiate out from the internet sphere to the public sphere in real time. 

 

Here's how it happens. Johnny watches christian apologists get their royal asses handed to them, all the time, on the internet. He learns the weaknesses of the apologist by way of observation, and even participation. Then, out in the world of real time, some asshole gives him a load of shit about the bible, for instance. Johnny uses this power of knowledge to completely ravage the said asshole trying to apply what he thinks is absolute truth. Johnny also learns the weaknesses of New Age fantasy stuff, paranormal stuff, and supernatural claim making in general. He gains the knowledge of mythology as not literally true. That's becoming a very popular knowledge online, in any intellectual oriented circles you may visit. And that trickles down to the not so intellectual circles too, as the occasional pwning of some one and then it catches on there too. People learn how to pwn others and it runs like wild fire. 

 

This trend multiplied by one, two, three, four, five, six, seven......generations equals what? 

 

I think it equals accelerating change and accelerating awareness......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with that is that I can think of some scientists and mathematicians I have known personally over the years who give rise to the question "how did these people get from naturalists to supernaturalists?"

 

What you suggest would be all very well if not for one very stubborn variable - the irrationality of humanity.

 

But, in the end, time will tell, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites