theism is natural
Theism is completely natural for the human race. I’m not an expert on anthropology, but it seems that every society has invented a deity. I think they usually worship the deity (or deities) by gathering in groups and saying or singing positive and repetitive phrases. They also seem to try to appease the deity, believing better things will happen now or in an afterlife if they sacrifice appropriate earthly objects, like children, chickens or money. Most people believe in the deity system that is dominant in the area of the world they are born into, but some do listen to other deity systems and, based on what they learn, decide a different one sounds more believable or rewarding.
The primary motivation for accepting a belief in a deity seems to be that it provides explanations for the parts of life we can’t quite comprehend. This in the past helped explain things like rainbows, earthquakes, plagues of locusts and how the planet came into existence. Nowadays, the deity systems are not required by everyone as an explanation for natural phenomena but they can help provide comfort and limited reasoning for the parts of life that are often out of our control – like death, behavioural problems and accidents.
Given that advances in science have provided explanations for things that only deity systems used to explain, and given that we have a much greater understanding of the world and the religions within it, more and more people are coming the logical conclusion that the particular deity dominant in their culture is unlikely to be true. And they look around at the strange inconsistencies or unpleasant aspects of the other religions in the world, and can’t believe them to be true either. And here we have the atheist. Not a naturally occurring default phenomenon, but rather the direction of evolution as information clears the millennia-old fog.
However, as far as I can tell there is a chink or two in the armour of the logic-clad atheist. We know that science is explaining everything without the need to resort to the supernatural, and we assume that what science doesn’t know, it will have have a way of finding – but why would this absolutely negate the possibility of a deity? Surely a deity can create a scientifically sound world. Also we know that the religions that exist are open to logical and/or moral destruction based on their inconsistent ‘holy’ writings, their corrupt and unpleasant institutions and the outright discrimination many of them promote. But how can we assume the deity communication channel is flawless? Even if it is, how can be sure there is one deity and why do we assume the deities would have our best interests at heart?
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any deity. The supernatural presence that many feel or the coincidences people view as divine intervention are subjective at best, and generally open to ridicule. But I can’t conclude that there is no possibility of deities being somewhere out there. They would have to be not quite the omnipotent deities we have been imagining, or deities I personally strongly disagree with, but there is a minute chance they do exist.
Does that make me agnostic? If so, can anyone truly claim to be an atheist?
To be honest, what would it matter? This in no way undermines the need to continue to challenge the accepted norms of organised religions when they are harming individuals and society. Women should have an equal voice within the leadership and congregation of all churches; homosexuals should have the right to be fully accepted in society; all people should receive non-judgemental sex education and access to birth control; and no rule that is written in any holy book should be adhered to if it doesn’t actually make any sense. The rest of it is just good fun, rough and tumble arguments about our personal perceptions and beliefs.
“Surely a deity can create a scientifically sound world.”
Yes, you’d expect one to. You’d also then expect one to be informative, rather than mysterious.
“Does that make me agnostic? If so, can anyone truly claim to be an atheist?”
No one is 100% atheist, and only a fool would say they were. I’d personally love there to be a supernatural, perhaps something in line with the Buddhist idea of samsara. The problem with that, though, is it doesn’t work with the laws of the conservation of energy…. Plus it can’t be measured. I sort of touched on this in a post: http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/could-the-next-duncan-mcdougal-please-stand-up-we-promise-not-to-laugh/
I fully agree with your conclusion. If someone gains some sense of meaning from religion then good on them. Only a thumping asshole would stand in their way. What I’m against is religious interference in society. This current crop of anti-science BS is maddening. It’s principally why I started my blog. If these nutcases weren’t messing around with people and laws and education I’d probably be writing dark children’s fairytales. Seriously.
Now, to your central argument: Theism IS natural. No, anthropomorphic theism is not natural. So there! 🙂 To be serious, it’s just the latest manifestation of far older generations of pantheism, Totemism, paganism, animism and ancestor cults. Yes, the inclination to this mysticism is there, natural, but it’s all nothing but the child of paranoia. That’s my answer, but you’ll have to read the post for the explanation when it’s up.
LikeLike
“No, anthropomorphic theism is not natural.” Well, if you’d said that in the first place! I take theism to be belief in any old invisible thing controlling stuff. I’ll do a full embarrassed retraction when your post goes up. 🙂
I really enjoyed your post about energy and afterlife stuff. The weighing of bodies seems laughable now but perhaps one hundred years ago it was worth a bash!
LikeLike
Agreed. I don’t consider him a fool. He had an idea and he tested it. Good on him! Maybe one day soon we’ll be able to say we actually do physically affect (is it effect?) every atom that comes into contact with us. Tiny, minuscule, almost un-measurable, but an affect nonetheless. We impart a charge, a positive or negative residue, an echo which then travels forever with that atom on its wild old journey through the universe. I think that (knowing that) would place a HUGE emphasis on living a good life… a positive life. It’d also give every second of that life a wonderful, on-going meaning.
LikeLike
I’m still thinking about this and wondering if it comes down to a difference in our understanding of specific words. Wikipedia (I hope this is an admissible source) tells me:
“Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.”
Then, just to be sure we’re understanding the same thing::
“A deity is a being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred.”
The veneration of ancestors, totems, or a spirit world, all fit this description of deity. Even the most basic belief of “there is something I can’t see influencing all this” is theism. So, I’m still confused why so many people think that the statement about a single deity appearing in more than place makes sense in relation to the assertion that ‘theism is not natural’. I mean it makes perfect sense in relation to the fact the Christianity or Islam hasn’t popped up randomly in more than place, but not theism generally.
LikeLike
It’s a pretty broad definition of theism which includes animism and ancestor worship. I certainly wouldn’t go that far, but it really doesn’t make any difference in the end. What it all boils down to is something imagined. Something that’s taken its cue from something else… in this case, death and the anxiety it brings. The earliest (to-date) sign of worship is paleolithic burials with grave goods around 90,000 BCE which is more or less in-line with anthropological theories of when man became “man.” So, yeah, with the broadest possible definition we could certainly argue that this is natural.
My definition of theism would be creation myths with a central deity or families of deities, and that only popped up around 5,000 BCE.
The point though was more to do with no two religions/creation myth/deities emerging twice… not even close. Science is natural. The law of gravity remains unchanged and will be discovered by peoples regardless of where they live or when.
LikeLike
Been meaning to ask.Is this photo one of yours as well?
LikeLike
Of course! That’s why my strapline claims ‘pretty pictures’. I get scarce enough interest in my ‘strong opinions’ but I must confess to being distraught that my artistic genius is never remarked upon. 🙂
LikeLike
Ah, well I didn’t want to wax lyrical before making sure.
This photo is rather excellent. It has, for me, a Salvador Dali quality.
The way the tree seems to writhe, its branches are like the tiny arms of a T-Rex, and the cloud formation gives it an ethereal feel.
Really smashing. Well done, you.
I would like to ‘nick’ it , if I may, and use it for a desk top, if that’s okay?
LikeLike
*glow* Why, thank you! Haha. Feel free to nick it and even sell it for a fortune.
LikeLike
You should supply details of the photos in the space provided for captions on the upload.
Where, when,what camera, lens etc.
It would give the photos a more personal touch.
I am very interested in the photo. Where was it taken?
LikeLike
In a US National Park – Colorado National Monument. There’s not much point in putting camera information, it’s always a bog standard Sony Cybershot, cheapest model available. I don’t even like it much, haha. But I discovered it’s easier than lugging around my lovely 1979 Pentax ME Super and then developing film ….
LikeLike
It is now centre stage on my Lap top. Looks smart!
Where was the shot taken, please?
LikeLike
Smile. Know what you mean. I have an old Olympus OM10. My daughter has a swish Nikon with all the bells and whistles. I must go digital one day, but I don’t do much photography these days, but I feel if I did have a digital camera it would rekindle the desire to click away.
LikeLike
Definitely! Even with the cheapest available you can get pleasing results. Yesterday I was trying to catch an hummingbird territorial fight, which isn’t the easiest proposition, and with a film camera would have been a waste of time, but with digital you just click endlessly till you get a one with them in the frame. Then you crop and fiddle with the light and colours on the computer and it all looks rather cool! It’s a different approach but just as satisfying.
LikeLike
e have Aloes all around the property. Last year I planted a few outside one of the bathroom windows. The Sunbirds love them when they bloom. From the bathroom window it is like being in a bird hide. Now that Emily is getting a dab hand at the camera we will see what happens this winter when the Aloes bloom. I’m hoping we get some good shots.
LikeLike
Wow, just looked up sunbirds – gorgeous! Lucky you, hope you get some good shots.
LikeLike