Spinoza's argument against free will was not to say there was nothing to be done about changing one's experience and of those around you. Consider the following proposition: — Valentinus

Thank you for that contribution. :clap: The similarity between Spinoza and Hinduism and Buddhism has been noticed by many. I find your post quite agreeable with my own thinking.

I think if we all knew Eastern thought, we might see an end to religious wars because to me it makes perfect sense.

And if we consider the gods to be concepts, instead of supernatural beings, then there is no problem with pantheism. Civilizations with a pantheon of gods created more and more gods as they realized new concepts. This got out of control, resulting in Amenhotep IV's grandfather ordering a search of the archives for the true god, and Amenhotep IV then declaring there is only one god and attempting to end the worship of other gods. Which I explain to support my opinion of gods being concepts. We also have knowledge of the Greeks inventing gods as they needed them, and changing the nature of Athena when Athens became a democracy.

That explanation of the creative process is beautiful. :clap:

I am mildly concerned that many discussions involving religions that I have read here focus far to narrowly on Christianity. In my view Christ's teaching while good and even vital were extremely limited and were irrationally attached to the utterly insane, bloody and cruel writings in the first testament. Examples: The Rape of Jericho with Jehove as a bloody accomplice and the cold bloodied murder by black magic in Egypt of thousands and the absolutely appalling doctrine of "original sin"
I am not sure of Buddhism but both Lao Tsu and Confucius believed in and extolled "The Basic Goodness of Man."
Confucius was by far the most day to day practical of the phrofets.

I think that I might be able to make a strong case for the fact that "Morals exist genetically in the human mind and were installed there by the forces of natural selection and evolution perhaps a quarter of a million years ago.

I think that most people who do just adhere to religious beliefs still believe in the existence of evil but they do not see it in exactly the same way, as the devil, but real, nevertheless. It does seem that most secular philosophers still see a basic duality between good and evil. Mill saw human beings as having higher and lower pleasures. T Huxley, who was an agnostic saw conflict and destructiveness as problems.

In the psychoanalytic perspective saw the tension between Eros and Thanatos. These were the life and death forces, but, to some extent to some extent his whole notion of the death instinct seems a bit like evil because it is about destructiveness. He sees life as being about instincts, with the superego being like conscience, with ego mediating between the two.
Perhaps complexes are like inner demons.

Jung certainly saw complexes as being like demons arising from the unconscious. Of course, I am aware that whether to rank Jung as falling into the religious or secular is highly debatable in itself because he wrote so much about religion and evil, and in some places he writes as if he is outside of religion and critical of it, but, at times, he writes as though he is coming from a religious perspective, as expressed in his famous interview quote, 'I don't believe in God, I know.' In some ways, he seems to come from a Gnostic perspective. He was involved in a lot of dialogue with a theologian, Victor White, about the whole problem of evil. Essentially, he seemed to side with the view of evil as a real force, as in contrast to one Christian perspective that evil is simply the absence of good. This was all documented by White in a book, 'God and the Unconscious.'

However, my main point is that it is not necessary to believe in God in order to believe in the existence of evil. That is not to say that all philosophers in the secular tradition necessarily believe in the existence of evil as a force. It is an area worth researching. I would be surprised if many believe in literal demons. Probably a lot of esoteric Eastern philosophers do believe in them. I know that many in the theosophical tradition do.
.

Hi Athena. We have been discussing myths but, unless I missed it We have not been looking at specific myths. When I grew up we had several myths for children, mostly for entertainment but sometimes acting as warnings. Godilocks and the 3 bears I would say is entertainment but the boy who cried Wolf was definitely a warning.
But what about current children's myths? Do any exist in competition with TV? A modern child hearing of Peter and the wolf would think: Why weren't the parent in jail for child neglect?
Do you personally know any myths?

What is the difference between social truths and morals?

I am sorry if it appears that the discussions seem to focus on Christianity. That is certainly not my intention and I would like it to involve many other traditions. I am interested in the whole area of comparative religion, but more familiar with Christianity because that is the background in which I was raised. I would love people to discuss the other religions and atheist perspective, because this dialogue would be fantastic. Feel welcome to input any ideas of your own because I have certainly not wished to create a thread which is focusing completely on Christianity.

I just saw your comment to Athena about myths. This is a fascinating area, touched on briefly so far. It will be interesting to hear Athena's view, but I think it would be helpful if you spoke a bit more about the myths you grew up with, because I was mostly brought up with the Christian ones, so I am interested in your experience.

Thank you for considering the passage. I think the latter parts of the Ethics address the William James perspective more directly than the first parts.

I am leery of viewing traditions of thought as systems that complete the expression of specific concepts. Taken to a certain point, that would be to say there is only one concept that can translate all others.

In regards to Spinoza, I find the consideration of his work as a conversation with Maimonides to be illuminating. Spinoza was expelled from the Jewish community but he did not expel them from his. He was also keen in his opposition to the religious wars raging amongst his Christian contemporaries.

Quite true. In my own case part of the reason was that I considered that Christian morality was not good enough or detailed enough for me.

My close friend Ray always looked puzzled when asked what religion he was. He said he didn't know what he was because he had never bothered to wonder about such a triviality.

I am in general agreement. I might add that difficult or obscure or overly complex answers to questions are frequentlynot the problems. The problems are difficult or obscure or overly complex questions. Many times I have found that it is far better to spend more time examining questions than on devising convoluted answers.

My internet connections range from erratic to non existent.

↪Tom Storm Quite true. In my own case part of the reason was that I considered that Christian morality was not good enough or detailed enough for me. — Ken Edwards

It could be tht you are commenting on what Kierkegaard called Christendom or man made Christianity. Christianity as I understand it is a perennial tradition meaning its essence always was. Naturlly secular influences devolves it into its opposite.

The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones

For Christianity to retain its value and avoid being secularized, it must be discussed in private for those who have already begun to "remember." Othewise it devolves and becomes a part of secular society.

Again I might suggest that we spend more time examining questions and less on answers. The healthy thing about looking at questions is that it can be comfortable and comforting simply to say: "We don't know the answer to that yet but we have succeeded clarifying the issues and we are hot on its tail."

I am inclined to spend loads of time thinking about questions, but in writing I think it is important to experiment with lines of thinking. Certainly, I am not trying to say that I have the answers. But I am open to you raising any questions which really stand out because these forum debates do allow for such useful dialogue, so much more than thinking alone.

It is interesting to hear that you are a graphic designer. I thought about training in that when I left school but decided to follow other studies, but I have pursued art to a lesser extent in certain ways and from a different angle. I used to illustrate a poetry magazine at university, and did do an evening course in illustration, which was focused on the technical aspect of drawing and painting. However, I did go on to do some study of art therapy and that is where I probably began thinking about getting in touch with the symbolic dimension, especially as I did undertake personal therapy with a Jungian therapist. So that forms the background to the approach I come from. Also, I was in discussions about exploring other dimensions in art on a thread about whether art was creative about 2 months ago.

But, probably my basic idea is that of tuning into the collective unconscious. Do you believe in the collective unconscious? This is probably where it fits into the discussion with myth, because these involve archetypes, and these are also central to the narratives within the various religious traditions.

I definitely believe that there has always been some kind of perennial philosophy in existence because human beings do need to find meaning. There is a great need for answers. You are right to say that in the jungle people were far more aware of rhythms and cycles. We have been taking modern life for granted and grumble if the transport is behind schedule or even if the Wifi does not work as we expect. It is so easy for us in this technological age to lose sight of wisdom.

It is interesting that you should speak of the idea of 'descended from above'. In some perennial accounts, including that of Blavatsky, there is the idea that evolution in that way. Rather than human beings having descended from apes there is the idea of the first human beings as angelic beings who were with more subtle bodies, and how after the fall of Atlantis, fell into the gross bodies. Blavatsky and others have developed these ideas and there is the whole 'new age' myth of the process of 'ascension.' I went through a period of reading books on this which suggested that human beings could ascend again to the state of the human beings prior to the fall of Atlantis. However, I am aware that there is very little evidence for its historical existence.

It is possible to get carried away with these myths but it does present a radical alternative way of seeing than we are accustomed to and it does give some hint of a possibility of conscious evolution. It is hard to know what the idea of conscious evolution does mean exactly. I have read a little of Henri Bergson.

Also, I do believe that the majority of human beings only use a very tiny part of human potential. Here, I can even mention another mythic idea in 'new age' thought, the idea of DNA activation. I have been to the mind, body and spirit festivals in London, in which there are workshops offering this. It is based on the assumption that people only use 2 strands of DNA and the rest is known in science as junk DNA, but it is not really junk at all. The workshops were about enabling additional strands of DNA to be activated to release untapped potential. But I won't go on any further as it will probably sound like gobbledegook to many reading it. But, it is an alternative way of seeing to conventional narratives. Generally, I do think that the whole new age movement draws upon the mythical ideas of perennial wisdom.

Carl Jung spoke of the importance of dreams and those coming from the collective unconscious. I do believe that the idea of the collective unconscious is useful for thinking about as a source from which images and stories evolve. — Jack Cummins

Is there any evidence that Jung was anything more than a crank? There is absolutely no evidence for any of his ideas (which I studied formally some years ago). Why would you be preoccupied by other dimensions when evidence for them is scant and there is no reason to believe, even if they can be imagined, that they matter to us at all.

I think that the better question would be is what evidence do you have to suggest that Jung was a 'crank'? I think it is difficult to measure his ideas and probably the only way you could do this would be to measure the way in which his ideas or Jungian therapy have a positive impact on people's lives.

Really, the reason why I brought in his idea of the collective unconscious was because it is seen as a useful construct for thinking about recurrent themes and symbols, underlying myths and religious narratives. Do you know of any better way for considering them?

It is possible to get carried away with these myths but it does present a radical alternative way of seeing than we are accustomed to and it does give some hint of a possibility of conscious evolution. It is hard to know what the idea of conscious evolution does mean exactly. I have read a little of Henri Bergson. — Jack Cummins

Jack, I remember reading once that rat poison is 98% good corn. It is that 2% that gets them. Many worthwhile ideas begin with good intentions but natural laws designed to turn actions in circles and sustain creation will turn a lot of ideas including new age thought into its opposite. How could Christianity be corrupted into the Spanish Inquisition? It is the result of animaIistic reacting to natural laws.

You've mentioned your interest in what the Devil means.

Revelations 13: 11-18
11. And I beheld another beast rising out of the earth;
it had two horns like a lamb, and spoke as a dragon.

[12. And he exercises all the power of the first beast before him,
and causes the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast,
whose deadly wound was healed.]
13. And he did great wonders, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all,
14. By the wonders it had power to do in behalf of the beast,
it deceived the inhabitants of the earth,
telling them to make an image to the beast,
which had the wound by a sword, and yet lived.

15. And it had power to give breath to the image of the beast,
that the image of the beast should both speak,
and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

16. And it caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave,
to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17. That none could buy or sell, who did not have the mark:
the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding calculate the number of the beast:
for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

If the number of the Beast is a Man's number 666, it makes the Beast Man. What is this power which gives breath to the Beast assuring none could buy and sell without it? Is this the effect of the personality of the Beast created by technology and the internet? Those who do not worship the image of the Beast could be killed. Is society moving closer to losing itself and demanding worship of the Beast?

Conscious evolution begins with acquiring the ability for conscious attention as opposed to directed attention. This enables a person to become free of unnecessary laws and habits and open to receive help from above to awaken. Absolute conscious attention is prayer. It requires getting out of our own shallow way and asking from the depth of our being.

I think that the better question would be is what evidence do you have to suggest that Jung was a 'crank'? I think it is difficult to measure his ideas and probably the only way you could do this would be to measure the way in which his ideas or Jungian therapy have a positive impact on people's lives. — Jack Cummins

Jung was a 'psychologist' whose interest in myth ran away with him. His collective unconscious idea has rarely been taken seriously except by artists who use it in many ways because it feels right to them. It is no different to astrology - which persists despite the evidence. Jordan Peterson has made Jung popular again in some circles.

It's not unusual for bad or false ideas have a positive impact on people's lives, that doesn't mean this is a good thing.

What makes you think it is necessary to try to classify or group together myths in the first place? What precisely does this provide you?

Your answer seems to be a rather literal interpretation of the 'Book of Revelation.' I don't come from that angle. That was how I thought when I began university, but I see things in a much wider way. I do think that we are at a critical juncture in history but I don't interpret it all in a Biblical way.

The reason I believe it is important to understand myths is to understand the recurrence of themes underlying religious experience. I don't think that any one religious belief system has the whole picture of truth. However, I do think that the questions underlying religions are a central human need and are of importance. I don't think that there are any absolute answers but I do not that these issues are central to philosophy and for living.

What I don't understand is the way in which the whole area of religious thinking has to come down to those who see the central issues viein literal ways(Christian or other views), or the other alternatives of atheism. Both seem so extreme. The reason why I admire Jung was because he was one of the thinkers who was able to break down this division, but I am sure that there are many who can see that the whole question of God does not have to be a definite yes or no. I feel almost alone on the forum because I am not religious conventionally, but not an atheist.

People often get lost in comparative religion and see what they want to see. Given that the subject is crammed with vagueness and deepities and unverifiable premises and centuries of symbolism and ambiguities, how exactly will you tell good from bad and what are you hoping to get from this?

What I don't understand is the way in which the whole area of religious thinking has to come down to those who see the central issues viewing in literal traditional ways(Christian or other views), or the other alternatives of atheism. Both seem so extreme. — Jack Cummins

Not sure what you mean by the 'whole area of religious thinking' not sure such an area exists. Maybe you mean the common or general discourse on religion and spirituality. But is that in fact an accurate account? Fundamentalists abound in all areas - from economics to religion. There are many more nuanced discussions on theism and atheism e.g., David Bentley Hart for one.

My aim in starting the debate was to break down the divide between the religious and the atheists and I think that the whole field of comparative religion enables clearer possibility of this. You speak of the danger of getting lost, but, my genuine view is that I see the mythical perspective of understanding religion as the one that makes sense to me, because I don't see it as completely false or true.

I have just seen your latest response and perhaps it is religious fundamentalism which I find oppressive, but there are so many fundamentalists. Perhaps, I am an agnostic, but I do have sympathy with the underlying message of Christ and the Buddha.

Fair enough. Fundamentalists are monomaniacs and it is generally beyond our capacity to address this, whether it be political fundamentalists or Jungian versions :smile: . Once a person is fully infected by a doctrine, they see the world entirely in those terms and anything which contradicts their 'certainty' is viewed with rancour. These sorts of monomaniacs are pretty common on discussion forums. The irony is, to be human is to dismiss ideas that don't work. In this activity we all need to take care not to become the kind of shrill pest I described.