• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If there is no Aeolus, Who started winds?

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
This sort of question has been asked (even recently) about things like the universe, but I can't help but remember that we humans have believed that if there wasn't "somebody" pushing air around, there would never be any wind -- and so of course they imagined "gods" to undertake those important duties.

So, is it necessary that there is a "who" (note that this is a personification), with a motive to make wind happen? Or is nature capable, one way or another, of doing it on its own, with no will at all?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
This sort of question has been asked (even recently) about things like the universe, but I can't help but remember that we humans have believed that if there wasn't "somebody" pushing air around, there would never be any wind -- and so of course they imagined "gods" to undertake those important duties.

So, is it necessary that there is a "who" (note that this is a personification), with a motive to make wind happen? Or is nature capable, one way or another, of doing it on its own, with no will at all?

How does anyone know that nature can do anything on it's own, with no will at all?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Apparently "If there is no Aeolus, who started the winds" is an effort to rebut (and perhaps mock) threads such as "If there is no God who started the Universe". If so, it is terribly sophomoric and confused; the First Cause argument, whatever its legitimacy, is in no way a denial of natural law.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So, is it necessary that there is a "who" (note that this is a personification), with a motive to make wind happen? Or is nature capable, one way or another, of doing it on its own, with no will at all?
I don't see why we have to deny the gods to explain the natural world. After all, Evangelical Scientists have evidence that gravity is actually caused by God.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
So this is very much in line with the Greek researchers who discovered the god Aeolus as the force behind wind. What I want to know though, is which god makes the sky blue, and how? Can he do it again? It's been really grey and overcast here for too many days now.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
I don't see why we have to deny the gods to explain the natural world. After all, Evangelical Scientists have evidence that gravity is actually caused by God.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
So this is very much in line with the Greek researchers who discovered the god Aeolus as the force behind wind. What I want to know though, is which god makes the sky blue, and how? Can he do it again? It's been really grey and overcast here for too many days now.
which is oddly in harmony with the things the physicists are talking about since the atom was split, the deeper they get into it the more in harmony with the mystics/philosophers they sound.
an atom while it is apparently solid is winking in and out of existence, pulsing with the flow being observed.
which is similar to the idea of old that everything comes from an aetheric source, through this source, manifests in our frame of reference, then goes back to that source, repeatedly, like music that keeps playing.
Very curious in any case.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
How does anyone know that nature can do anything on it's own, with no will at all?
Sun and shade increase and decrease temperatures, and therefore air pressure, from place to place -- which causes air to move from higher pressure to lower pressure areas, meaning "wind," does not require any "will" of anyone at all. This is not difficult -- it doesn't even require much in the way of knowledge. Just a little common sense.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
Sun and shade increase and decrease temperatures, and therefore air pressure, from place to place -- which causes air to move from higher pressure to lower pressure areas, meaning "wind," does not require any "will" of anyone at all. This is not difficult -- it doesn't even require much in the way of knowledge. Just a little common sense.
which can be traced back to old Sol...the Ra in the sky who dies each night and is reborn every morning.....people have really over-literalized these tropes....thus all the ridiculous notions, which are anthropomorphic fantasies, perpetuated because they serve empires in crowd control...period.
simple people need to realize they have been played by the shamans, the ones telling the stories.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
This sort of question has been asked (even recently) about things like the universe, but I can't help but remember that we humans have believed that if there wasn't "somebody" pushing air around, there would never be any wind -- and so of course they imagined "gods" to undertake those important duties.

I think you're mischaracterizing and oversimplifying polytheism here (and probably theism more generally). One has to remember that the gods are nature in these traditions. There isn't some imagined thing "behind" the winds, the gods are the winds. The wind itself is the "who" which is then personified for literary effect to make things more relatable and understandable for humans.

Put another way, there is no wind period without Aeolus because Aeolus is the wind - all of the winds. And the Greeks had different divinities for specific types of winds, IIRC.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I think you're mischaracterizing and oversimplifying polytheism here (and probably theism more generally). One has to remember that the gods are nature in these traditions. There isn't some imagined thing "behind" the winds, the gods are the winds. The wind itself is the "who" which is then personified for literary effect to make things more relatable and understandable for humans.

Put another way, there is no wind period without Aeolus because Aeolus is the wind - all of the winds. And the Greeks had different divinities for specific types of winds, IIRC.
And I think you are misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make -- that if you are not able to understand how a thing works, and yet see that it does work, you are left with few choices -- when it comes to trying to gain mastery over those things -- other than assuming controlling entities that can be cajoled or persuaded somehow.

And that is, I must admit, at least part of how I see religion.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
And I think you are misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make -- that if you are not able to understand how a thing works, and yet see that it does work, you are left with few choices -- when it comes to trying to gain mastery over those things -- other than assuming controlling entities that can be cajoled or persuaded somehow.

And that is, I must admit, at least part of how I see religion.

Hmm. Can you unpack a bit more what your intended point is? I didn't get this read from the OP.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Hmm. Can you unpack a bit more what your intended point is? I didn't get this read from the OP.
My point is that we humans, by our very nature, will tend to anthropomorphize things that we cannot understand. And thus, obviously, we create the gods we believe in, because they both explain things (well, they don't, but that's what we think), and they can be appealed to.

It takes very sophisticated, global observation to understand the hyrdrolic cycle. If you have no access to those sorts of observation, but desperately need rain to grow the crops that will feed your community, what do you do? You decide that rain must be "brought," and that somehow you may have displeased the bringer -- and then you have to find some way to correct that. In some societies, that has just amounted to prayer. In others, it was surmised that sacrificing a virgin might do the trick.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Sun and shade increase and decrease temperatures, and therefore air pressure, from place to place -- which causes air to move from higher pressure to lower pressure areas, meaning "wind," does not require any "will" of anyone at all. This is not difficult -- it doesn't even require much in the way of knowledge. Just a little common sense.

Bible believers know the physical mechanics of wind and still believe a creator and designer set it up so we could have the weather cycles.
Nothing about knowing the mechanics of something means that there was no creator. Does knowing how a car works mean that nobody invented the car or made the car?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
My point is that we humans, by our very nature, will tend to anthropomorphize things that we cannot understand. And thus, obviously, we create the gods we believe in, because they both explain things (well, they don't, but that's what we think), and they can be appealed to.

Mmm... I still think that's an oversimplified and one-dimensional interpretation of why these stories are told. You're making the assumption that anthropomorphizing is a result of ignorance rather than simply as a literary device, for example. You're also making the assumption that the main function of gods is to explain things, rather than to express a relationship or values, as another example. And finally, you're making the assumption that making appeals is central as opposed to, say, simply giving thanks or being humble towards forces that are unquestionably greater than we are as humans.

Theism is more complicated than many like to think it is. It's no less complicated than the sciences. Unfortunately, simplistic views of theism and the theistic impetus in humans are about as prevalent as simplistic views of the sciences (if not moreso since we don't even bother to teach anything about theism in public schools). :shrug:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think you're mischaracterizing and oversimplifying polytheism here (and probably theism more generally). One has to remember that the gods are nature in these traditions. There isn't some imagined thing "behind" the winds, the gods are the winds. The wind itself is the "who" which is then personified for literary effect to make things more relatable and understandable for humans.
This argument is hard to square with other aspects of Greek belief... for instance, the belief that Aeolus had a son who founded a literal, physical city.

This does not seem aligned with the idea that they regarded the personification of the wind as nothing more than a literary device.
 
Top