Cruelest historical concept of a god?

[Plotinus]

An atheist can believe that it's possible, even probable, that things exist that are beyond our understanding. Atheism is not the same thing as scientism or naturalism. An atheist simply doesn't believe that there are any gods. I don't think atheists typically hold this position because they "gain" from it (except to the extent that we all "gain" at least some kind of doxastic equilibrium from our beliefs), but because they don't see any good reason to suppose that gods exist.

 

[Kyriakos]

^I tend to agree, however it seems to me (i am agnostic) that being an atheist is a bit (at best) like saying:

1) I cannot know what exists at n distance in space outside of the room we all are.

2) But surely no such thing as a "god" does.

Which is a bit problematic in my view, given that the term "god" by itself is not one with a single (or simple) meaning. There are many parameters which may define such a being, in relation to the cosmos in some way (otherwise in my view it would only amount to some super-being, but not an actual god).
On my part i think that if a god exists, that god would probably be 'conscious' in a hugely different manner than we are, and probably would seem unconscious to us as well.

This is an issue for another thread, though, and not really in the history forum i suppose

 

[Erebras]

Well, we're on a history thread in a Civilization forum, so at the risk of redirecting the discussion, may I point out something I've observed all these years? Without bothering to give supporting evidence (for the sake of brevity), I've come to the conclusion that religion and faith shape and define a society and a civilization in a way that no other force of humanity does. I am unaware of any atheistic societies that started out that way. To my understanding, the closest thing we have is the pygmies in Africa, who, quite unlike so many of the tribes in the regions surrounding them, do not concern themselves with spirits or spiritual matters. They have no deity or deities. They have a vague sense that The Forest takes care of them -- provides for them -- but it's not a true religious point. In a sense, it is this lack of faith that defines the pygmies, but makes them notable as an exception to the (so-called) rule. For, as I've just stated, our societies our defined by our faith past and present, and the atrocities mentioned in the past seven pages of this thread are presented in a religious view, but were the commitants completely atheist, the struggle and outcome would still be there. In Go God Go (South Park episode) the world (in the far future) has become atheist, but little has changed: they say, "Nothing d*mn you!" instead of "G--d--n you!" and instead of fighting religious wars, they wage war over the most pressing question of their time: whether they should call themselves the Allied Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist Alliance, or the Unified Atheist League. Sure it's tongue-in-cheek, but it illustrates that there is something within the human experience that persists, regardless of what ideas become outmoded and what new ideas take their place. I maintain that religion is the prime defining characteristic of a people. It is a lens through which most other factors are considered.

 

[Plotinus]

That may be so. But it does rather depend on how one defines "religion", which is impossible. Plus your claim struggles when dealing with societies in which there are lots of religions, or where few people are religious. Is the prime defining characteristic of the English really the Church of England?

 

[Masada]

As a Dissenter I'd sure as hell hope not.

 

[Erebras]

Plotinus, I'm not sure why you chose Church of England to define the English. It's a latecomer that grew out of a disagreement I wouldn't even characterize as an attempt at reformation. I guess because it's in the name, right? Religion has a straightforward definition; no word-wrangling required. But let's use England or Britain as an illustration. You know all this because of your Rood and the Dragon work, among other things, but here's how my statement fits in. If one were to describe at length the heritage of the British people, one could begin by describing the climate, their diet and vital statistics, anthropological findings of settlements, and so forth to establish some sort of baseline, but inevitably you will have to delve into what the British believe or used to believe religionwise because faith is so intimately tied to all else. How can you describe Stonehenge as anything other than a mere formation of stone if you divorce it from any type of paranormal or supernatural sensibility? What about Canterbury Cathedral? Another fancy pile of stones. Change gears. The conflict between the RomanoBritish and the Britons: at one point you'll mention Julius' soldiers witnessing their enemies sacrificing prisoners in the ranks before the battle commenced. The Viking Age: at one point you'll mention Jomsvikings and the Great Heathen Army. Skip way ahead. The Crimean War: it's one of the last military crusades in history. ALL of these have a secular aspect, but all of them are tied to religion. And do please no one needlessly point out I'm skipping around all over the place; I cannot contain the whole of British history in a single post, nor do I need to.

 

[Erebras]

Even if the people are not religious, it is irrelevant. The supernatural element is there no matter what. The most dyed-in-the-wool doubting atheist may exclaim an oath to God when he strikes his thumb with a hammer while woodworking. The same one may say "Bless you (or its German equivalent)" after someone sneezes, and also use such phrases as "Knock on wood" or "I swear it's true" or, if he's in a Wal-Mart in South Carolina on Sunday, all the lack of belief he can muster still will not allow him to buy his beer there, using money that clearly states In God We Trust, no less. In a couple of months this same atheist will hear music in the shopping malls and see displays of a Middle Eastern stable on the front lawns of some homes and many churches, churches he doesn't attend at all, but yet are in his culture, a culture intimately tied to a religion he has no belief in. He'll go home to a house adorned with a holly wreath and a standing in his living room; will he refuse a gift given him after the solstice, on principle? What one person believes -- or not -- is not relevant to defining a culture or civilization. Do you honestly believe that China as an officially atheist nation isn't teeming with religion and superstition? It is rife with it. It was well after the Communist takeover that rhinoceros horn and bear gallbladder was still doing a brisk trade in Asia. Mao's mausoleum is an object of ancestor worship and pilgrimage. To this day feng shui practitioners there and elsewhere continue plying their trade. Does anyone want to call feng shui a science on the order of quantum physics and microbiology? Didn't think so.

 

[Plotinus]

Of course religion is all over the place, and our culture is saturated with elements that derive from religion. I didn't deny that. But it doesn't follow from this that "religion is the prime defining characteristic of a people". I think that's too strong, particularly where you have a society which lacks a single religion which everyone believes. I cited England because that's a case where you have one religion which in theory occupies that position, but in practice obviously doesn't; and because I can't think of any religious characteristic which one could reasonably say is definitive of the English as a whole. (The closest I can think of is hatred of Catholicism, but there are and have been plenty of English Catholics, so that wouldn't do.)

BTW, no-one knows what Stonehenge was originally built for, including whether its purpose was religious or not.

 

[Erebras]

Look, I recognize we may be getting far afield from the topic at hand (divine cruelty), and I'll let the matter drop. I am in no way being argumentative or disrespectful of the opinions and reactions here -- I do enjoy thoughtful and well-considered discussions -- and by agreeing that a non-religious culture can be "saturated with elements that derive from religion" I see my point is well-taken. I see the difference of view is in the context of what "defining characteristic" means. I intended for it to mean "descriptive" or "explanatory" of the various things that compose a culture: architecture, taboos, idioms, legal codes, lifestyle habits, and so forth. I did not mean to imply that one could pigeonhole a people by a single set of religious practices or superstitions. Clearly variety exists, even within a supposedly homogeneous culture.

As I said, I'll say no more of this, simply out of respect for the thread topic. I see where you are coming from, Plotinus, and it makes sense what you are saying. Thanks.

 

[sophie]

Plotinus, I'm not sure why you chose Church of England to define the English. It's a latecomer that grew out of a disagreement I wouldn't even characterize as an attempt at reformation. I guess because it's in the name, right?

While you could certainly make a case for this characterization of the Anglican Church in, say, 1545 or even as late as the 1620s, by the time of James I's death I would say that Anglicanism had become pretty well entrenched in English society as the Church of England and England's people, to the extent that it was a source of serious, fracturous conflict from 1639-1649, as well as in 1688-89 (and the reign of James II in general). I would like to think that I've developed a reputation around WH for advocating for Haigh - which is to say that even as late as 1560 England was still a distinctly Catholic nation and the efforts of Cromwell and Somerset could certainly have been reversed had Mary reigned longer or had she bore a son for Philip. However by the time you get into the reign of James I, a Scotsman who chose the Anglican church, and was really the first royal to expend serious energy thinking about and deciding what exactly the Anglican Church was going to be, there was really no going back for England.

 

[Arakhor]

A God that allowed Tudor England to become a Habsburg state for longer than a few years would certainly be a cruel one.

 

[Jehoshua]

I think the lot of you are using a too superficial definition of religion with regards to the point of it defining a people. I agree with Plotinus that you can't say that The church of England defines the English, or the Kirk the scots. But I think it is valid to argue that in terms of underlying preconceptions that define how a people, on the whole and taken as a generality, perceive the world religion is essential. The sinic world is rooted for example in Confucianism and Daoism which informs the value system of that culture even amongst those who don't follow either of those religions. Likewise the wests deepest values (that differentiate it from say the Chinese) are rooted in the Judaeo-Christian paradigm, even amongst those who have no belief in any Judaeo-Christian religion whatsoever.

 

[timtofly]

If the religion is the only thing a person knows from birth to death and that religion is the governing factor of the area that individual lived, there is the illusion that it is the religion that defines that society. However it would seem that there is no other choice since the religion is the society itself.

Today though it is not the case as seeing as how religion is no longer the society, but only a shell of what once was.

It would seem to me that religion is only the defining factor as long as it maintains control of the society. Once that control is lost, it is just another choice to take or leave.

So it would seem to me that the cruelest "god" would only be as cruel as the people in charge of any particular society.

 

[Dachs]

I think the lot of you are using a too superficial definition of religion with regards to the point of it defining a people. I agree with Plotinus that you can't say that The church of England defines the English, or the Kirk the scots. But I think it is valid to argue that in terms of underlying preconceptions that define how a people, on the whole and taken as a generality, perceive the world religion is essential. The sinic world is rooted for example in Confucianism and Daoism which informs the value system of that culture even amongst those who don't follow either of those religions. Likewise the wests deepest values (that differentiate it from say the Chinese) are rooted in the Judaeo-Christian paradigm, even amongst those who have no belief in any Judaeo-Christian religion whatsoever.

Where, exactly, are you coming up with these "underlying preconceptions" that define how people "as a generality" perceive the world?

Is there any reason to consider them anything other than an ass-pull?

 

[Flying Pig]

It may well be the other way around; other aspects of our culture hugely influence how we interpret religion. It's no accident that the Middle Ages created an extremely hierarchical picture of the heavens, with angels afforded different ranks and 'Lord God' at the top. It's also not a coincidence that, as society in general has become less conservative and more willing to accept alternative lifestyles, so the Church has become more liberal, its Bible translations have become more comprehensible, and so on.

 

[Kyriakos]

Actually, my "maw" is meant in more than one sense. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of Hell Mouth, which was a common depiction in medieval passion plays, but I didn't really mean it figuratively. You see, the Molechers had large bronze bull-idols in which they would stoke a fire good and hot. Part of the religious proceedings were to cast live babies into this glowing red-hot bull, and while they're sizzling, they're screaming in agony. It was these peals of agony that delighted Molech. Dead babies wouldn't do. Live adults wouldn't do. It had to be the tortured screams of innocents, or else the god would not be satisfied. Even writing of this stirs up emotions of revulsion. I'm not totally against live human sacrifice, you understand, even though it goes against my newly-adhered-to Christian viewpoints. It's just that I think such activity should be restricted to child molesters, politicians, attorneys, terrorists, and televangelists, and leave the babies alone.

Also, Τα σαγόνια του καρχαρία may be an approximation of maw, presuming it doesn't translate as "fish mouth" and has the connotation of a predator's wide-open fang-and-tooth-filled orifice. The online dictionary would not translate Τα σαγόνια του καρχαρία, so I don't really know if it means what I hope it does. The "normal" translation of maw into Greek has the meaning of mouth or neck, which doesn't quite have the "ominous" meaning I'm trying to convey.

[I had to look up Mashiach. It's another word for Messiah (as I suspected).]

I had missed this post

Yes, that movie's title (Jaws, "shark's jaws" here), does indeed use a similar term to what i thought "maw" was in Greek. Basically the jaw structure of some animal capable of crushing or cutting its food while in its mouth.

I suppose the Molechian infant-burning stove/idol is indeed the cruelest deity mentioned yet here...

(some added info exists in post #119).

 

[Tahuti]

A God that allowed Tudor England to become a Habsburg state for longer than a few years would certainly be a cruel one.

How about a deity that turned Austria and Spain into Tudor countries?