I have just one thing to add. Even though alcohol is sinister, even deaths by cirrhosis of the liver may be far less painful. Of course, this is debatable. But, what I also wonder if the two stem from the same sources, fear. The nihilism and fear of nuclear war may drive obliteration of consciousness through alcohol as a way of blocking it out. It is hard to know for sure, but, sometimes the grimness of the news makes me wish to get drunk because the idea of mass destruction may be worse than one's own personal death. It signifies the loss of human potential on a grand scale.

I have read your posts and thanks for your replies. Historically, protest has been important in the fight for women to vote, racism, gay issues and many other campaigns. However, I do wonder if the entire political climate has changed. It may be that the right to protest remains but is more of a symbolic gesture. Perhaps it always was to some extent. Unfortunately, violent protests, especially riots and terrorism have poisoned people against those who wish to protest peacefully. But, it may be that human powers and liberties have become eroded, especially in the increase in surveillance. It may be that the governments in many nations use fear as a weapon in its own right.

Yes, while we have been interacting you didn't know that I have been a CND supporter. I belonged to Youth CND and went on marches. My dad was not entirely happy, not because he thought that CND was wrong, but because he thought that I may end up on a government blacklist.

One important aspect of the arms race was the idea of it as a deterrent. However, there appears to be an insidious change, with more emphasis on the possibility of it being used. In the twentieth century the arms race was a way of holding the Cold War together. Is this happening again, with different yardsticks?

Thanks for your summary of Stenger's writings and the reference to Barrow's book because both seem worth exploring.

That's interesting as I hadn't thought of the connection between the new atheism and 9/11. Of course, religion, politics and philosophy have a complex relationship. So, it will be interesting to see what emerges in response to all that is happening in the world currently, ranging from the pandemic and conflict, especially the Ukrainian situation...

I guess that it may be that there is some difference between the subject, or genre, of popular non fiction writing, from philosophy writing or academic philosophy. This is probably more clear in relation to religion, which is probably the angle I was coming from when I wrote a thread previous to this one religion on whether the existence of God was one of the sciences or humanities. It may be that in academic thinking and non fiction writing the conventional categories of non fiction writing are breaking down. Religion is related in some ways to the academic tradition of theology or religious movements. It is also related to the genre of spirituality, which may be popular outside of the academic establishments.

It does seem that writers such as Dawkins don't really deal with the academic issues of religion. Of course, a strong influence on these academic arguments was the Christian church historically. The ideas of Augustine and Aquinas took on those of Plato and Aristotle, reworking them in the context of the Christian Church, which became a source for the development of philosophy. But, in regard to the ideas of Dawkins and others they don't fit into the framework of philosophy itself.

One aspect which Karen Armstrong raises is that there are different conceptions of God, especially the God of the mystics and that of the philosophers. However, it would be hard to place the writings of Karen Armstrong because they could be they could be regarded as popular, although she came from the unusual position of having lived as a nun and writing on this basis. So, she is describing personal experience and it is hard to know where this fits in. It could be argued that it is not philosophy in the sense of being formulated on the basis of arguments primarily. But, here it could be queried to what extent is the philosophy of religion related to abstract arguments, or whether it incorporates personal reflection on the basis of experience.

It does seem that the new atheists do attack institutional religion. I did read the book with the book, 'The Four Horsemen' , with the dialogue between the four writers last summer and didn't really feel that they got into the debate about the existence of God deeply enough. At the time, I consider creating a thread on it but was not sure that there was any really outstanding argument in it.

From my reading of the four writers, I find the ideas of Dawkins more interesting, as I reread it recently. The reason for this was because I thought that his understanding of the question of whether Einstein was or was not an atheist useful. Also, even though Dennett is included In the new atheism by some, I have come across the idea that he is not an atheist. From my reading of some but not all of his books, I am sure how to interpret him, because he comes across as a materialist but that doesn't in itself equate with atheism necessarily.

Thanks for the link to an interesting article. It does seem as @Tom Storm argues that the 'new atheists' are like evangelists of atheism..

The only thing about saying that Darwins ideas of evolution as being significant is that it is possible to accept Darwin's theory and believe in God. As far as I understand, he was not proposing his ideas to imply atheism itself.

I will look out for the writing of Dr Stenger because it is worth looking at the idea of the new atheism from a wider angle. I read Dawkins a long time ago initially, at a time in which I was not reading philosophy. At the time, I was not even aware of the movement of new atheism.

In a way, the question of 'the supernatural' is part of the underlying question. The only thing which I would query is what supernatural means fully. The reason why I wonder this is because I read Lyall Watson's book on biology, 'Supernature' which suggests that aspects of nature, including telepathy, which people cannot understand may just complexities in nature which people cannot understand. Of course, I realise that religion is more about aspects far more difficult, such as the resurrection of Jesus and the nature of miracles. Of course, here it is connected to how religious texts, are interpreted, back to the issue of literal or symbolic interpretations.

There is still some new cyberpunk being written buy it has become wider. However, this has been going more in the direction of post apocalyptic and steampunk. This is probably because the post apocalyptic touches upon the issues of a possible end to civilisation as we know it. Steampunk looks at the blending of the idea of the animate and machine as well as merging aspects of the past with futurism. These developments are reflections of changes in the underlying concerns which are pressing in the human imagination and philosophy.

With regard to the lack of logicians who are female that maybe due to issues of exclusion rather than their specific mind or mental abilities. I had a female lecturer who had a PhD in Philosophy, and I think that she went much further. She was extremely knowledgeable and a brilliant tutor. However, part of her success may have been due to how she was youngish with blonde hair, slim, dressed like a model and many signed up for her classes because they were so attracted to her. I wonder whether she would have succeeded so well if she had been been fat, middle aged and dowdy.

I hope that she is not a member of the forum because even though I have not mentioned her by name she might realise who I am talking about but hopefully she would forgive me for what I am saying or even say her point of view on the matter.I doubt whether she is a member though and we would be extremely privileged to have her input on many topics.

It sounds worth reading and I may try and get hold of it. I am simply trying to read some of the ones queuing up in piles in my room. If I get too many more at present I will be in danger of becoming buried alive amidst books. That would be a philosophy tale in itself.

The idea of all the characters in the Bible being satirical is interesting. That is because so many of the themes such as the Virgin birth and resurrection seem to related to themes of mythology. Also the Gospels were written such a long time after Jesus, so it is hard to know about whoever or whatever the life of Jesus was constructed upon. I am inclined to think that there must have been some aspects of real life, probably related to the way it was taught as literal to me in childhood. However, when the Gnostic Gospels are seen as well as the ones in the Bible it becomes more open to question.

It is an interesting question whether the mind has a sex and it is a variation on the mind and body problem. That is because it depends to some extent on to what extent the brain of males and females are different as well as biochemical aspects or even chromosomes.

On the level of 'mind' that depends on mental states associated with gender identity. The research on this is unclear, especially as there is no clear evidence on the role of hormones in the brain before birth in determining gender identity and sexual preference, which are of course separate from one another. Also, there is the issue of whether social factors are important in determining gender identity and even the wiring of behaviours which may be seen as being associated with male or female psychology and 'mind sex'.

I think that the idea of Satan as being the accuser or punisher makes a lot of sense, and this is a way of seeing the symbolic significance of the God vs Satan relationship, rather than the historical idea of good and evil in a battle against one another.

Your suggestion of Mary meaning a rebellious female is something which I was not aware of. That is because in the representation of the idea of Mary which I came across the concept of Mary is often of someone who is obedient to God, and pure in the sense of being a Virgin, or the idealised image of motherhood.

In a way, your description of the female partner of God corresponds with the muses as a source of inspiration in the arts. There is s strong connection between what is projected onto other people and what onto God. In mysticism and the metaphysical poets there was a blending of the idea of love of a human partner and God, or the Goddess. So, yes the quest for a female deity and lover are connected.

Jung also spoke of Sophia, or Wisdom, as the feminine principle, important in balance. The Gnostic Gospels also pay attention to such symbolic connections, with the suggestion of Mary Magdalene as Jesus's lover.

I do agree that art can be used as a 'threat', even to evoke fear, especially in imagery such as imagery of hell. I am not saying that representations point to a need or to an actual reality behind these. So much is human construction and interpretation.

One aspect of this is the idea of music played in reverse having a sinister aspect. One main example of this is the example of people finding the word 'Satan is God' if the Led Zepellin Song, 'Stairway to Heaven' is played backwards. Whether this was intended or simply an interpretation is questionable because any song which has the word dog in it is God back to front.

I hope this example is not too obscure in response to yours because sometimes I go into a flight of ideas. It may be that in some ways there is a need for belief in God or a spiritual dimension, as Jung argued in, 'Modern Man in Search for Soul'.However, it may be that the idea of God can become toxic or unhelpful. It could be asked where this will go in the future? Will human beings outgrow the need for God and religion or will this exist as long as human beings exist?

You say that art and science may be Divine Simplicity. This may be true sometimes, but it can be more complex because it may be that there are contradictions in the perspectives. For example, the idea of the fall at the beginning of the world may be recognized as a mythical description but this is not the established understanding of science. In this respect, art and science can be like two vastly different languages.

Art is based on the exchange of images or the imagination through the various arts and forms. To some extent, it can be possible to have private art which is about the personal discovery. However, art which is shared through exhibitions, magazines or other forms of transmission is about conveying ideas or feelings, in relation to an audience.

I do take your point. It would be interesting if Barbie Dolls were taken as objects of worship. I came close to being misunderstood at work over my lion on my key ring, who I called Leonardo. I had a manager who discussed this in supervision and I think that she thought that I was psychotic and saw Leonardo as 'real'. There is a danger of speculation based on lack of direct understanding of the meanings of specific people.

The basis of my idea was mainly based on the ideas of a tutor who taught an anthropology evening class. He was a radical Marxist anthropologist, Chris Knight. He has published his ideas, which are backed up some research into the culture of the Aborigines. However, his views may be a bit 'alternative' rather than mainstream.

Art is definitely communication and always has been. However, the nature of art has changed at different periods of history and even aesthetics has an intersubjective aspect. Art is bound up with cultural values, including ugliness and beauty. There is also a distinction between art made in secular and religious contexts. The majority of art made in the twentieth first century is secular based although there the arts are still used by some as aspects of religious or spiritual expression.

I don't see why you think figurines are not related to religious worship. I can't see why else they would have been created. The earliest human beings were not likely to make images in the way that artists do today. They did not come from such a clear distinction between the literal and the symbolic. That is because they were not coming from the knowledge of science or the deconstruction of postmodernism. They were in a philosophical climate without a clear distinction between art and science, bound up with magical and animistic ideas, which were the foundation for the development of religion.

I am not sure if I said art is not simply about beauty accidentally or intentionally but I would say that this is how I see it. So, it probably is more intentional, in the way in which aesthetics does come into play. Part of the issue though would be that aesthetics is partly subjective, although there may be some objective aspects, or measures of what is considered to be beauty. But, in the religious contexts there is some symbolic aspects of ugliness as well, such as represented by gargoyles.

Art can also be seen not simply as about works to be viewed and appreciated. It is about the processes and mental states of those who created it. In this sense, the arts, including music and literature can be about the dark and negative aspects of life. This is also in connection with the idea of seeking God, as depicted in dark and negative mental states. This is captured in the ideas and writing of St John of the Cross, ' The Dark Night of the Soul.' Even mysticism captured the alternation of heaven and hell, bliss vs despair and the ugly or diabolical, or even Satan as the opposition to God.

I came across the idea of the goddess preceding the Gods in anthropology and mythology, with reference to early art depicting goddesses. It may be that the development of patriarchal religion suppressed this. Jung speaks about the way in which religion suppressed the feminine principle. In particular, he speaks of the Trinity as an image of God which leaves out the feminine aspects, even though Catholicism holds Mary in esteem. He suggests that a more psychological whole model would be a quarternity as opposed to the Trinity, incorporating evil and the feminine aspect. Here, attention can be seen as a tension between the two Marys, the Virgin Mother and Mary Magdalene.

It is also worth thinking how many dispute the idea of a 'male' God. I remember having an English teacher at a school who was a feminist and used to refer to God as 'she'. Some people, including teachers, pupils and parents were horrified because it was a Catholic school. I even remember one boy, who was fairly sexist leaving school without finishing his studies because he was so unnerved by the teacher and her challenging views. I simply was amused by her and how different she was from other teachers.

Of course, many prefer to see God as beyond gender, because God as an ultimate reality doesn't have a body as a literal 'Father'. It is possible to see God as androgynous, incorporating the masculine and feminine principles.

Art is not simply about beauty but about the symbolic dimensions, including the imagery of angels and archangels in the scheme of the divine hierarchy. This is captured in religious art and icons. Some of this was with a sense of awe and stained glass windows, which capture light as being about the transformative properties of light. Also, the ten commandments forbade the making of images of God, but the artists began to depict God in the form of art work depicting Christ.

In some ways the appreciation and awe of the sacred and God was about beauty, even interconnected with the beauty of cathedrals and churches. Also, in some ways worship may have been connected with a sense of wonder at the beauty of life and creation.

The argument of design can also be sen in support of the existence of God can also be seen as related to aesthetic appreciation of nature as an expression of the divine.The opposite is true as well. Evil as a symbolic form of ugliness was also connected to querying the existence of God on the basis of difficulties of accepting the notion of an all powerful God amidst so much natural and moral evil.

It is interesting that some people who have been brought up with religious ideas and fear of hell become fascinated by religion rather than rejecting it completely. However, my own experience has many incongruities. I was reading Nietzsche's writings while attending church regularly, not even seeing the contradiction because I simply loved his writings. Also, I was fascinated by Hinduism while attending Christian Union, even though people there were speaking of how following Jesus was the only way to salvation.

The symbolic aspects of religion and the idea of God are apparent in religious art and poetry. Julian Jaynes speaks of the development of consciousness in accordance with religious beliefs in culture. He speaks of how earliest human beings had less of a clear distinction between inner and outer reality, with projection onto Gods. He saw this as connected to hallucinatory experiences. Also, he argues how this was significant in relation to the development of art, song and poetry in the emergence of language. Also, anthropology shows so much about the origins of the symbolic aspects, with the imagery evoked in shamanism and also the understanding of the goddess, which preceded the idea of the gods and one god.

I am definitely interested because I wish to read as widely as possible. Apart from discussion with forum members, one aspect which I do find helpful is direction, areas and specific books being recommended. Obviously, it takes time to follow them up but I definitely have found that my reading life has opened up so much in the 18 months since I first joined. The more one searches the more there is to find...

It is interesting how some people alter their childhood concepts of God and religion in general. Having come from a Catholic background, I saw all kinds of contradictions. As a teenager, I was extremely religious, more so than most of my friends. Strangely, in the last few years some of my closest friends, a few who I knew since school, have become so religious and talk about God even on the phone. They are aware that I am interested in philosophy and that I get involved in discussions about God on a philosophy site. They are a bit bewildered at times by this.

This is not mentioned in your post, but was what I thought after reading and reflecting on what you wrote. I lose count of the times I am advised by friends and other people to pray, which involves a relationship between self and other, as God, as suggested by Martin Buber in 'I and Thou'. This relationship is central in relation to the idea of the existence of God, which is different from philosophy questions itself. It is about a personal relationship with God, which goes away once a person stops believing in God. As I am not a complete atheist I do pray at times, but more as a form of meditation.

You speak of art's lack of ability to explore beyond beauty but there is not simply visual art but literature and music in particular. There is the whole notion of the gothic fantasy and horror, which also gives scope for questions about metaphysics and an arts based approach to the concept of God.

I will look into the books which you mentioned, although I have a number of them queuing up in piles, waiting to be read. I have one with some writing by Cassirer on myth and he was someone you recommended on myth in the past. It is great that we are able to share recommend reading on this site, and the only problem is that sometimes there are just not enough hours in a day to get through them. I can usually read about 5 at a time, giving them turns, but anymore than that gets a bit confusing...

The book , 'Genesis: The Story is How Everything Began, by Guido Tonelli( 2022) looks at the the beginning of life and the universe..The author is a physicist, but thinks that both science and myth are relevant to understanding this. He looks at the aspects of the stages of evolution in connection with the ideas of Genesis but over a long period in time.

One aspect which he refers to, which I think is interesting is the ideas of chaos, nothingness and the void. He says,
'Many equate the void with nothingness. But this is a serious mistake. Nothingness is a philosophical concept, an abstraction, that irreducible opposite of being that no one has succeeded in defining better than Parmenides: 'Being is, and can never be; non- being is not, and can never be'.

I won't go on further because it might be seen as if I am going off in a strange direction of thought in relation to my topic, and I don't wish to derail my own thread. However, the topic is large and that was what I was reading and thinking about yesterday in relation to agency, even though I did not manage to explain it all in the reply I wrote. So, the theme which I am thinking about the that of potential underlying life and everything.

Just one other thought. You say that philosophy is multidisciplinary. This is true, but it may be that science is getting the lion share increasingly, and even I have begun to go in that direction in what I have been thinking about.

Thanks for the link and it was useful. However, yesterday I was so busy reading that I felt on another planet, which also happens often. Also, I tripped over getting off the bus and have a swollen, cut and bruise above my eye, so I look and feel like a gothic monster.

Generally, the thinking which I did about agency lead me to think about the nature of causes but I am aware that there is a new thread on causes here, which I haven't read yet. So, I began reading a book which I had on my shelf, 'Five Proofs of the Existence of God' by Edward Feser( 2017).t looks at the ideas of Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Leibniz.

.I found it interesting because I haven't read that much of such writers and my reading on the existence of God has mainly been writers like Richard Dawkins and ' The Four Horsemen'. But , I have been planning to read more since last year's debate between you and Amen on atheism is not logical. Strangely, I am aware that I have read more from the perspective of atheists even though I don't consider myself an atheist. Perhaps I will end up one if I read more of the theists' ideas.

The particular ideas which I was thinking about were Aristotle on causation and the chapter went on to describe how Bertrand Russell. Towards the end of the chapter of causes in relation to the findings of science. However, the am aware that there is a thread on evidence in science for God, which I discovered when I was writing my own. So, that lead me to reflect that this should mean that mine should be developed a bit differently, but I can't escape thinking about science at all.

The aspect which I found interesting is about the nature of potential and change, pointing to the way in which causes may not be straightforward. The author states that 'relativity in no other way undermines the principle that 'whatever goes from potential to actual has a cause'. However, ' The four-dimensional block universe interpretation of relativity theory approximates the notion of without potentiality...since causation involves the actualization of potential, any description which leaves out one or the other is going to leave out causation..'

So, I began thinking about the possibility of absence of causation, which would not necessarily support the idea of God's existence, or may indicate the opposite. Of course, I am not a physicist, so should not get too carried away, out of my depth.

I will also speak of the other book which I have been reading but open a new post because this has become long.

I am sorry if I did not address the points in your post. I will look at it again. I am struggling with thinking about the question which I raised. I am wondering where metaphysics comes into the picture and was reading a book on that yesterday. I will look at your points in relation to this a bit later today because I am just getting up.

In past eras the edges between art and science as played out in religious perspectives may have been blurry indeed. For example, there was the Christian story of the fall of the angels. It is hard to know to what extent this was based on Biblical traditions or the writing of John Milton's ' Paradise Lost'. However, the way in which I was brought up was as though such ideas were science. I remember telling my dad that a lot of the story of the fall seemed developed by Milton.

If anything the task may be to disentangle the ideas rather than fuzz them. But, definitely, the arguments about atheism on the forum are so different to the God who many pray to on a Sunday morning, as you suggest. I will even go as far as to say that when I began University I was going to Christian Union. The 'God' there was different from the forum. However, I can remember at the time in a class someone seemed surprised by some idea which I expressed saying, '..but you're in Christian Union'. I was being stereotyped and seen as 'Jack in a box'...

If anything, I am all in favour of juggling ideas from religious and all other perspectives. But,I don't mean that they should be fuzzed. What may be important is to separate aspects of science and art in order to appreciate both approaches in their own right.

I am certainly not of the opinion that one necessarily needs to believe in God. The way of seeing symbolic or numinous aspects through the arts is important and people's ability to do this is variable with many engaging in the arts for entertainment alone. I guess that I am saying that my own personal handling of the question is not a simple yes or no, and even agnosticism seems to be too much an aspect of tick box culture.

The question of agency is important and it can be too simplistic for people to simply seek explanations with religious beliefs, ignoring science. This is becoming harder, especially for those who approach philosophy. It just may go to the other extreme, with reality being seen and explained too rigidly according to the scientific model, with disregard for other perspectives. Rather than rely on science too emphatically, perhaps philosophy needs to incorporate a multidisciplinary approach.

I am in a similar situation of not being that concerned about God's existence but not an atheist. It often seems like the existence of God is approached like a for or against contest and, often this becomes a fierce battle. That is likely to be connected to the associations of religion, especially based on life experiences and, historically, religion has been emotive to the point of causing war.

At one stage, I was worried about ideas of hell and damnation. That lead me to question and think my way out of my Catholic or Christian background. However, atheism seems too stark and even though the images of God which I grew up with aren't helpful, I still wonder about the cosmological anthropic argument because there is no clear answer as to why evolution took place and even though consciousness is likely to have been emergent, there is no clear basis for understanding the existence of life or the spark of consciousness.

I have friends who are religious in a conventional sense, mostly Christian but a couple who are Muslim too. I find concrete or literal interpretations of Biblical texts extremely unhelpful. I was rather shocked to discover that one of my school friends believes in the story of Genesis literally, including specific individuals called Adam and Eve. When religious ideas are not balanced with science it may lead to a rather lopsided picture. I still find the Bible difficult to read because I come from Catholic associations and I feel fearful of the idea of the day of judgement and the issue of life after death, which is not dependent on belief in God but, nevertheless, the two are often linked together. However, I am aware of the Bible and other sacred texts as fantastic literary sources, which are able to capture a contemplative approach to life and existence in a different way to the model of science. So, I would argue that the strictly scientific approach to the God question, without respect for the symbolic aspects, misses something and the arts may be the 'missing link.'

Plato's ideas on God are interesting and so different from the way people often argue for or against God scientifically. Also, some other ideas like Plotinus are relevant. It may be that the view of science has made people see the issue rather concretely. Of course, science is extremely important for understanding, but even then, it is a model not reality itself. It may be that science can only go so far in giving a picture. It doesn't mean adhering to creationism or even conventional Christianity, but a wider picture, such as the idea of the Tao.

The thing is that people may think of God extremely differently. This depends on background and the difference between the image of God as Jahweh in the OT is different from that of Jesus. Different philosophers have thought of God differently, Gnostics and Spinoza differently from mainstream Christianity. Of course, it is not simply about Christianity because there is Islam and many different perspectives, including those of monotheism or alternatives. In a way, God can be seen as a way of understanding reality itself.

It doesn't surprise me that you have read Huston Smith as I know that you have read so much on comparative religion. I have read it twice and will probably read it again because there is so much to grasp. Previous to reading it, I had begun to think how limited both atheism and theism were. Then , I came across Huston Smith's, 'Forgotten Truth' and found that it takes the issues underlying the debate between atheism and theism in a much deeper way beyond that division.