We get extinct not that easily. But if on all these planets we introduce the western way we'll get extinct easily even there. — EugeneW

You're stretching/straining that logic elastic to the limit again EugeneW. Extinction on one planet won't matter so much if we exist on thousands of them.

I don't put a limit on your fantasies. You can fantasize whatever and how much you like. Just keep an eye on what's fantasy and what's real. — EugeneW

Right back at you and your interesting but very personalised version of theism EugeneW!

You're stretching/straining that logic elastic to the limit again EugeneW. Extinction on one planet won't matter so much if we exist on thousands of them. — universeness

Even then we will go extinct soon. What you prefer. Going extinct for sure on all planets within 1000 years or surviving on Earth until the end?

That's my hat! The difference between my god fantasies and your fantasies is that your fantasies will remain fantasies, while the gods sre real. — EugeneW

:rofl: You do love that panto response EugeneW

Even then we will go extinct soon. What you prefer. Going extinct for sure on all planets within 1000 years or surviving on Earth until the end? — EugeneW

Not only are you a big fearty but you are a pessimistic one. I don't subscribe to 'The end is nigh' sandwich boarding or screams of "We are doomed, we are doomed we are all just doomed!"

Not only are you a big fearty but you are a pessimistic one. I don't subscribe to 'The end is nigh — universeness

Then why you're so eager to go to the planets? We have everything here.

I am wondering where metaphysics comes into the picture ... — Jack Cummins

Here's some metaphysical speculation (plus 5 links therein); no doubt it's not the only way to think about your OP ...

If distance doubles every generation you would be right. But it doesn't
— EugeneW
Again I don't know what you mean here. Lo — universeness

I mean if we can double the distance of one lightsecond traveled each generation then we could get there.

Just imagine. We have found some antimatter device or laser energy drive. How much energy it costs to accelerate to say 1/2 to the speed of light. Takes about 5 years to travel to Alpha Centauri. For sure there is an habitable planet there. Say the spaceship has a mass of 10exp5 kg. What's the kinetic energy at half light speed. 1/2x10exp5x10exp5x10exp5=1/2×10exp15 joules. Okay, an ounce antimatter suffices. Costs 62.5 trillion dollars per gram. Thats about 6250 trillion dollars... Not million, not billion, but trillion. Dream on universeness...

Then why you're so eager to go to the planets? We have everything here. — EugeneW

I don't think there is much chance of me getting the opportunity EugeneW, so it's a moot point.
My projection of humans living outside of our planet and eventually somewhere like Mars and maybe then a terraformed Mars and then on to the rest of our solar system and then on to an interstellar existence, will take us thousands of years to achieve I think. It's about our distant future needs, not our current needs, but the latter does 'speak to' the former.

Thats about 6250 trillion dollars... Not million, not billion, but trillion. Dream on universeness... — EugeneW

Money is a human invention, we can dispense with it altogether. You need resources, human ingenuity, human labour and human willpower, money is just unnecessary capitalist BS.

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.

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.

Did you read the summeries / reviews about the books I'd mentioned (those are links) in my post which addresses your question about (ways of) 'experiencing the numinous' such as via "art"?

I've nothing to say about your interest in Aristotle's physics/metaphysics. I don't think his work is at all helpful in understanding the physical world especially in light of the physical sciences since Isaac Newton. But curiosity thrills the cat – so carry on and share anything you find interesting in the contemporary philosophical context.

As for that aborted debate with 3017amen, the less said the better; I'm glad, however, it spurred you on to read more than "New Atheist" polemics and irreligious grousing. Though I'm not impressed with Edward Feser, at least he is a philosopher who takes seriously (i.e. scholarly) "existence of God" questions.

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 — Jack Cummins

Yes, I've pointed this out in quite a few threads featuring the confusion of physical "nothing" with metaphysical "nothingness" and the inapplicability of the latter to modern physics, or natural sciences.

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...

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.

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.

I guess you found the reviews linked interesting enough for you to investigate those books. :cool: :up:

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...

I agree.

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, — Jack Cummins

I think we've had similar experiences; this has been mine as well. I sometimes think that my interest in philosophy, mysticism, and etc., are all simply a form of mental disease and a reaction to trauma instilled by fear of Hell. Weirdly, this still hasn't lead me to become "anti-religion", so to speak. To the contrary, I find religion fascinating to study, and I think the bashing of religion will always make me uncomfortable. Maybe someday I'll gather all the thoughts and make a thread, who knows.

Anyway, to try to come back to the OP, which I think hasn't really been properly addressed, yes, I think the arts deal with religion more appropriately than science does. But it's not clear at all to me what the relationship is between religion as it's practiced, religious symbolism, and art and it's lineage of being largely descended from religious symbolism. I think religious symbolism is rooted in something much more ancient that we aren't fully able to grasp. I'm reminded of Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances". I'm too tired at the moment to dive into it to give you a proper summary, but essentially the idea is that, in ancient times, the human experience of reality, sans technology as it we know it now, was a different experience, one of "direct participation" in the natural world. Imagine the best moments you've had of being out in nature and experiencing its beauty, experiencing a sense of transcendence (and not to mention being out in a thunderstorm or dangerous weather); and then imagine that as your day to day, minute to minute experience of life...paired with the constant struggle for survival. I think religious symbolism might have it's roots in an idea like this. We project our modern understanding of symbolism on the past, to our detriment. It was a different experience at the time. We shouldn't assume we understand what the experience of the ancients was, in relation to the things they expressed in a religious manner that have survived in modernity.

I'm not a 100% sure about this but knowledge figures prominently in a description of God (omniscience), while beauty (omniaesthetic isn't a god attribute) does not. It follows then that those who're in the knowledge business are actually doing God's work (collecting and compiling knowledge, exactly what we seem to be doing, is divine in that sense, ja?) and science = knowledge.

Nothing like this connection between god and science is to be found with respect to aesthetics (art).

Perhaps beauty is morally ambiguous (gorgeous but cold-hearted or patently evil, combinations that do occur in reality). However, even knowledge is so (evil genius, a trope of Hollywood blockbusters, Marvel and DC comics). On balance, knowledge is probably more bonum-friendly than beauty: Avidya, piggy, as the root of all evil vs. the lesser evil of vanity-beauty, birdie, re: Buddhism).

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.

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.

also the understanding of the goddess, which preceded the idea of the gods — Jack Cummins

Where do you get that from?

Art is not simply about beauty — Jack Cummins

You kinda shot yourself in the foot when you said that. I hope it was deliberate but then it looks accidental. Never mind, it doesn't matter, in the long run (we're all dead). Art is, I feel, a mode of expression (a language as it were) and as that, it can be used to convey thoughts + emotions; I might be able to translate (say) Wittgenstein from text into a painting or, if one is creative enough, into music (the tractatus-logico-philosophicus can be made into a rap song :grin: ). When looked at this way the confusion as to what art is is cleared up, oui? Don't think of art as a subject that has a finger in every pie and thus impossible to define; rather consider it as a language translating texts/ideas/feelings/whatnot into images, sounds, colors, and so on.

As for the divine in art, can a watering hole that caters to all animals be said to favor any single one animal? Seems like a good question, you be the judge.

Knowledge, on the other hand, is a God attribute, explicitly mentioned as omniscience.

That's all from me (at the moment).

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.

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.

That is dubious evidence at best. I’m well aware of Stone Age figurines … that should not be assumed to be anything to do with religious worship though.

Like I said, art is (has become) a language. "I love you" and "F**k off" are both valid expressions in English, a language, oui? Likewise for art vis-à-vis good & evil.

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.

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 do assume they are anymore than a future civilisation would view assume a Barbie Doll is the representation of some goddess.

Real anthropologists and archaeologists are VERY careful about applying opinions and personal views to ancient artefacts of which they have little to no information about.

There is nothing wrong with conjecture as long as it is understood as conjecture. Cognitive Archaeology can help a little in this area too.