Would a naturalistic view of god be beneficial during our present animal extinction event?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Full Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Would a naturalistic view of god be beneficial during our present animal extinction event?

Post by Greatest I am » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:16 am

Would a naturalistic view of god be beneficial during our present animal extinction event?

Nature gives us life and spirit. Our spirit gives us god. A god within each of us is very ancient thinking.

We cannot define our gods exactly. We can only use analogies.

I think that supernatural gods do not need anything from us. They do not need toys.

If we are to serve any god, it should be one that gives life and that is Earth.

Earth cannot speak. Only life in the form of a man can.

In the natural world, all life worships its own natural likeness. All except man.

Why are we fighting nature, and idol worshiping imaginary gods, as we destroy our eco system?

Regards
DL

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:40 pm

It's generally difficult to interpret most abrahamic scriptures as teaching pantheist doctrine. What could easily be confused as pantheism is actually a statement of God’s alleged “omni-presence.”
Psalm 139:7–8 wrote: Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
E.g., Bible versus like this purport that God is ever present throughout the universe, not that it is diffused throughout the universe, or that it is the universe itself.

Perhaps if followers of abrahamic religions were to adopt some kind of pantheistic worldview (the stick is God, the rock is God, the animal is God, the sun is God , the moon is God etc.) that would encourage them to be more compassionate toward the environment.

In the meantime, it may be more effective to work within the framework of your interlocutor’s worldview to convince them to go vegan (even if you don’t actually find the arguments convincing). There are many biblical versus commanding that Christians treat animals ethically and only eat them as a necessity for survival. https://www.openbible.info/topics/vegan

Of course, this tactic isn’t always effective if the ideologies are incompatible, or if they reach different end goals (see practical problems with Intersectionality. But in those cases you may want to persuade the interlocutor from those beliefs altogether.

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:26 pm

I am not sure what you mean by a 'naturalistic god'.

The idea of a god is the idea of a person, whatever it may involve. But the natural world is surely not a person - it does not have a mind, with thoughts and desires. Potatoes do not feel, hope, or desire anything. And nor does the soil they grow in, or the rocks the soil rests on. So the natural world is mindless and so cannot possibly qualify as a god in any meaningful sense of that term.

Our moral sense also confirms this. There is a world of difference between destroying an animal and destroying a potato. If there is an animal and a potato in the road in front of me and I cannot avoid hitting one or the other, clearly I should aim for the potato. Perhaps it is regrettable that even a potato be destroyed, but it is orders of magnitude worse to destroy an animal. So what accounts for this ethical difference? Well, nothing to do with how they look or taste - indeed, nothing to do with any of their sensible qualities. The difference, surely, is that if one destroys the animal one thereby deprives a mind of a life, whereas by destroying the potato one does no such thing.

So in my view no, it is neither coherent nor beneficial to personify the natural world.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Full Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:58 pm

Lay Vegan wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:40 pm
It's generally difficult to interpret most abrahamic scriptures as teaching pantheist doctrine. What could easily be confused as pantheism is actually a statement of God’s alleged “omni-presence.”
Psalm 139:7–8 wrote: Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
E.g., Bible versus like this purport that God is ever present throughout the universe, not that it is diffused throughout the universe, or that it is the universe itself.

Perhaps if followers of abrahamic religions were to adopt some kind of pantheistic worldview (the stick is God, the rock is God, the animal is God, the sun is God , the moon is God etc.) that would encourage them to be more compassionate toward the environment.

In the meantime, it may be more effective to work within the framework of your interlocutor’s worldview to convince them to go vegan (even if you don’t actually find the arguments convincing). There are many biblical versus commanding that Christians treat animals ethically and only eat them as a necessity for survival. https://www.openbible.info/topics/vegan

Of course, this tactic isn’t always effective if the ideologies are incompatible, or if they reach different end goals (see practical problems with Intersectionality. But in those cases you may want to persuade the interlocutor from those beliefs altogether.
A change in how theists think would be a great boon for all of us, I agree.
It would help reduce the harm they do not only to the environment but also women and gays whom the religious refuse to give equality to.

If we cannot get the religious to have compassion for humans, then having them respect nature will not happen.

Regards.
DL

User avatar
Greatest I am
Full Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:05 pm

Sunflowers wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:26 pm
I am not sure what you mean by a 'naturalistic god'.

The idea of a god is the idea of a person, whatever it may involve. But the natural world is surely not a person - it does not have a mind, with thoughts and desires. Potatoes do not feel, hope, or desire anything. And nor does the soil they grow in, or the rocks the soil rests on. So the natural world is mindless and so cannot possibly qualify as a god in any meaningful sense of that term.

Our moral sense also confirms this. There is a world of difference between destroying an animal and destroying a potato. If there is an animal and a potato in the road in front of me and I cannot avoid hitting one or the other, clearly I should aim for the potato. Perhaps it is regrettable that even a potato be destroyed, but it is orders of magnitude worse to destroy an animal. So what accounts for this ethical difference? Well, nothing to do with how they look or taste - indeed, nothing to do with any of their sensible qualities. The difference, surely, is that if one destroys the animal one thereby deprives a mind of a life, whereas by destroying the potato one does no such thing.

So in my view no, it is neither coherent nor beneficial to personify the natural world.
Not personifying Gaia has not helped us or our concern for the environment.

Because of that, I think just about any change to seeing nature as something other than to be abused seems like the right thing to do.

To continue doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome is a sigh of insanity.

To continue idol worshiping imaginary gods while abusing what we could just as easily see as a better god in reality is foolish, especially during a major extinction event that could include us.

Regards
DL

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:55 pm

But the world isn't a person. It is not the subject of a life. There's nothing it is like to be a world. We call it the 'objective' physical world - meaning by this the world that exists outside of all minds.

And I doubt we have any obligations to the environment. The environment matters insofar as subjects of lives dwell in it. But otherwise, it does not seem to, or not much anyway.

I mean, how does one 'harm' the environment? It's like thinking one can harm space, or time.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Full Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by Greatest I am » Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:00 am

Sunflowers wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:55 pm
But the world isn't a person. It is not the subject of a life. There's nothing it is like to be a world. We call it the 'objective' physical world - meaning by this the world that exists outside of all minds.

And I doubt we have any obligations to the environment. The environment matters insofar as subjects of lives dwell in it. But otherwise, it does not seem to, or not much anyway.

I mean, how does one 'harm' the environment? It's like thinking one can harm space, or time.
With all that is happening to our environment, thanks to humans, if I have to explain the harm to you then you are not worth my time.

I know the earth is not a person and does not have sentience.

I am saying that we would be well advised to give those attributes to Gaia as our present supernatural and imaginary gods are not having us protect what protects and sustains us here and now.

Regards
DL

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:55 pm

I asked how one can 'harm' the environment, rather than how one can affect it. Affecting and harming are not the same.

Perhaps a reluctance to explore ideas - to follow reason - and instead dogmatically to stick with one's initial thoughts is part of the problem.

Is it wise to encourage in people a view of the world that is false? I don't think so.

But the fact you think it is wise to promote a false view of the world shows already that you tacitly accept that, for most people, until or unless you show that something is the subject of a life, they are not going to take seriously that they have any moral obligations towards it. And the best explanation of why most people think that is that their reason tells them it is so. Which is also good evidence that it is so.


So, it would seem the evidence is that world is not a person, and so is not something that we have any robust obligations towards (I am not denying that it may matter to some degree, just not much of a degree). You wish to encourage in people the view that he world is a person, becusae that, you think, is probably the best way to encourage people to take seriously that they have robust obligations towards it. But that does not make much sense, it seems to me, for you are both deceiving people about the nature of the world, and decieiving people about their moral obligations. For if hte world is not a person - and it is not - then we almost certainly don't have any robust moral obligations towards it.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Full Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by Greatest I am » Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:34 pm

Sunflowers wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:55 pm
I asked how one can 'harm' the environment, rather than how one can affect it. Affecting and harming are not the same.
They are close enough if you are aware of the topic.
Perhaps a reluctance to explore ideas - to follow reason - and instead dogmatically to stick with one's initial thoughts is part of the problem.
I agree that climate deniers are a major part of the problem, but it is mostly Joe average that is refusing to vote his conscience. The deniers are a small and not too bright %.
Is it wise to encourage in people a view of the world that is false? I don't think so.
I agree. Deniers should be dealt with as liars.
But the fact you think it is wise to promote a false view of the world shows already that you tacitly accept that, for most people, until or unless you show that something is the subject of a life, they are not going to take seriously that they have any moral obligations towards it. And the best explanation of why most people think that is that their reason tells them it is so. Which is also good evidence that it is so.
What are you talking about?
So, it would seem the evidence is that world is not a person, and so is not something that we have any robust obligations towards (I am not denying that it may matter to some degree, just not much of a degree). You wish to encourage in people the view that he world is a person, becusae that, you think, is probably the best way to encourage people to take seriously that they have robust obligations towards it. But that does not make much sense, it seems to me, for you are both deceiving people about the nature of the world, and decieiving people about their moral obligations. For if hte world is not a person - and it is not - then we almost certainly don't have any robust moral obligations towards it.
I see more deception in the mainstream supernatural based lies than in accepting, tong in cheek, a lie that would help us focus on our extinction instead of on some shy daddy who is real.

You have a very shallow view of reality if you are into supernaturalstupid thinking.

That or you are just another brain dead climate denier.

Regards
DL

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:58 pm

You're too confused to debate with.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Frank Quasar, Google [Bot] and 62 guests