Does this explain religion?

[dybmh]

Interesting. What could a 'higher power' actually be?

When I said higher power, I was thinking of a divine supernatural god. But, it could actually be an alien. I don't really get into the alien creator mythos; but, I suppose it actually could be alien.

In what manner could it exist, perceive, think?

Do you have a favorite movie/book? Something that you have watched/read many times before? You know it feels to get caught up in the plot ( especially your favorite parts ) even though the story is familiar? I think it's like that.

 

[PruePhillip]

First, you misstate the case you're arguing against. The idea that there was no historical Moses goes back to the 18th century (based on a scrutiny of the text). The archaeological evidence contains (a) nothing about a relevant Hebrew presence as slaves in Egypt and (b) since the last century, considerably more about the Egyptian occupation of the Levant coastline up to Canaan, which meant the Canaanite tribes were ruled by Egyptians. On top of that, Yahweh first appears as the god of a tribe south of modern Israel in 1500 BCE; it's a feat of imagination to get the proto-Jewish nation into and out of Egypt in the historical time available.

David is notable for the very little archaeological evidence about him. Whatever he was, he doesn't appear to have impressed his time and his neighbors in anything like the bible portrait of him. But there may be more to learn.

The important thing about history and archaeology here is that they speak for themselves; and that their interpreters don't try to force them into molds in conformity with their own beliefs.

Objectivity versus story again.

It's called "Archaeological transparency"
(think Genghis Khan)
I first encountered the term in a recent article about the Kingdom of Edom.
Edom hardly exist archaeologically speaking, but mining activity suggests
there was a much larger population that first thought. This applies to many
cultures which don't leave monuments and earthen/stone cities behind. This
includes Israel. It's been suggested that about 50,000 people lived in the
Judaen hills alone during David's reign.

Note - we have come a long way since people said "There is no existence
for any King David. (ca 1980's)

 

[PruePhillip]

If we did not have the ancient writings, would the archeological evidence tell us anything of the story(s) related in those writings? Hardly anything, in fact.

Selectively highlighting a few finds that seem to support the texts (there are many other findings that do little to support...and in fact, much of the texts would not be preserved in the material remains of the time) is the creation of myth to support myth.

That the record seems to validate the texts is undoubted. But remember, geologists once interpreted all the findings around the world in the reconstructed frame of the worldwide Great Flood of Genesis...but as more evidence was gathered, it became apparent that such a global catastrophe was literary pretension...myth.

Who holds to myths? EVERYONE. Everyone holds to myths, some of one construction, some of others, but nonetheless, ALL hold to myths that tell us stories of long ago and far away. Some myths are grounded in scripture, some in scientifically described fact, some in speculation rooted in nothing, or in some combination.

Scientific myths are rooted in interpretation of the physical facts. Religious myths are rooted in the interpretation of physical facts through a filter of religious texts and beliefs...and where the physical facts do not agree with the religious myth, they are ignored or played down or explained away.

Your point is valid. You hold to ideas similar to mine.
But people can't say anymore - "There was no King David" or "the story of Shiloh was invented
during Greek times" or "There was no prophet called Isaiah" because these things have come
to light.

 

[blü 2]

It's called "Archaeological transparency"
(think Genghis Khan)
I first encountered the term in a recent article about the Kingdom of Edom.
Edom hardly exist archaeologically speaking, but mining activity suggests
there was a much larger population that first thought. This applies to many
cultures which don't leave monuments and earthen/stone cities behind. This
includes Israel. It's been suggested that about 50,000 people lived in the
Judaen hills along during David's reign.

Note - we have come a long way since people said "There is no existence
for any King David. ca 1980's)

I find all that stuff interesting too, but in this context it simply shows what we already knew ─ some purportedly factual parts of the Tanakh are accurate, some may or may not be, and some are not, just as in any other historical document. And we know this through reasoned enquiry, the skeptical and objectivized methods of archaeology, history, textual analysis, and so on.

 

[PruePhillip]

I find all that stuff interesting too, but in this context it simply shows what we already knew ─ some purportedly factual parts of the Tanakh are accurate, some may or may not be, and some are not, just as in any other historical document. And we know this through reasoned enquiry, the skeptical and objectivized methods of archaeology, history, textual analysis, and so on.

It's like this. Other than the general Israel/Messiah prophecies in the bible,
there is simply no way to ascertain whether supernatural events happened.
But where we can check (though archeology) we do find much confirmation.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not sure about that. It's significant that we find religions ─ explanations of reality in terms of supernatural beings ─ wherever we find humans. It suggests to me that the explanation of religion is evolutionary, and relates to tribal bonding and the possessing of stories in common and related lifemaps.

Well fictive kinship is something that underpins tribal bonding, of course rituals and so forth build on this too. As for the transfer of knowledge/culture this is something that evolved socially, tribes that could do this effectively were more successful.

There are certainly aspects of religion that developed out of our evolved cognition too though

 

[blü 2]

It's like this. Other than the general Israel/Messiah prophecies in the bible,
there is simply no way to ascertain whether supernatural events happened.
But where we can check (though archeology) we do find much confirmation.

We find absolutely zero credible evidence of prophecy anywhere in the bible.

For instance, Jesus is never, not once, not even possibly, referred to in the Tanakh.

As I've pointed out before, he intersects with the job description of a messiah nowhere. He's not a war leader. He's not a king. He's not a high priest. And 'messiah', Greek 'christos', means 'anointed', unambiguously in the sense 'anointed by the Jewish priesthood', but Jesus was never anointed.

As for 'supernatural', it's not even clear what the word could mean ─ what objective test will tell us whether some being, object or phenomenon is 'supernatural' or not? Certainly not a single authenticated instance of the supernatural has been found. The result is that any explanation that's possible in reality, regardless of how improbable it might be, is always more credible than any purported supernatural explanation.

That's why stories are stories.

 

[blü 2]

Well fictive kinship is something that underpins tribal bonding, of course rituals and so forth build on this too. As for the transfer of knowledge/culture this is something that evolved socially, tribes that could do this effectively were more successful.

I'm familiar with fictive kinship in Celtic, particularly Gaelic, clans. I haven't looked at it beyond that, but it seems reasonable.

There are certainly aspects of religion that developed out of our evolved cognition too though

But too often on accidental or political grounds rather than on any objective basis. (The Trinity springs to mind.)

 

[LuisDantas]

Non-supernatural religions aren't the norm, and are relatively modern. (Atheistic Buddhism comes to mind.) And they tend not to have the problems that supernatural religions have of placing their stories in reality.

I get the sense that this reliance on supernaturalism is actually a recent invention and very much abnormal. It certainly unbalances religions quite visibly.

The supernatural religions can only exist in the absence of objective analysis. For instance, there's no definition of 'God' appropriate to a real being, such that if we found a real being who was a candidate, we could determine whether it was God or not. So right at the threshold it appears that supernatural beings / gods must be imaginary ─ a conclusion well supported by other evidence.

Which is why the contrast of the storyteller, the synthesist, with the conductor of reasoned enquiry, the analyst, strikes me as relevant here.

 

[Trailblazer]

"... mysteries give an air of pleasurable profundity, whereas explanations always smack of the banal."

─ Robert Sheckley, Minotaur Maze, 14
​

Your views?

The first thing that came to mind is that I like mysteries but I require explanations before I am going to believe in a religion. Logically speaking, God is a mystery and I would like to keep it that way. I need to know only enough to believe God exists, not all about God..... and I do not want to hear from God or meet God in any dark alleys either...

 

[PruePhillip]

We find absolutely zero credible evidence of prophecy anywhere in the bible.

For instance, Jesus is never, not once, not even possibly, referred to in the Tanakh.

As I've pointed out before, he intersects with the job description of a messiah nowhere. He's not a war leader. He's not a king. He's not a high priest. And 'messiah', Greek 'christos', means 'anointed', unambiguously in the sense 'anointed by the Jewish priesthood', but Jesus was never anointed.

As for 'supernatural', it's not even clear what the word could mean ─ what objective test will tell us whether some being, object or phenomenon is 'supernatural' or not? Certainly not a single authenticated instance of the supernatural has been found. The result is that any explanation that's possible in reality, regardless of how improbable it might be, is always more credible than any purported supernatural explanation.

That's why stories are stories.

The bible gives us a comprehensive picture of the Messiah as one who would come to
redeem, to be "cut off" and die for his people. This Redeemer would return to conquer
his enemies and reign over the earth. Those who rejected Him as Redeemer cannot
reign with him as King. And the Jewish people would reject their Messiah and mourn
for Him when he returns.
I am not sure what Messiah you are thinking of, but this is my reading of the bible.

 

[PureX]

The story-reading part of me agrees.

So perhaps the question raised by the OP is, if mystery is comforting or at least engaging, do the facts matter? As you know, the distinction between objectively real and purely imaginary is central to my view.

Yes, reality matters. But so do the possibilities we see within the unknown. Reality presents us with the concrete here and now, but how we engage with it comes from our ability to see multiple possibilities, and to hope in their future. Both are crucial to our humanity.

 

[blü 2]

I get the sense that this reliance on supernaturalism is actually a recent invention and very much abnormal. It certainly unbalances religions quite visibly.

My understanding is rather the opposite ─ that priestcraft always claimed the power to call down divine / supernatural intervention, and that in Christianity this was part and parcel of the salvation package.

 

[blü 2]

The first thing that came to mind is that I like mysteries but I require explanations before I am going to believe in a religion. Logically speaking, God is a mystery and I would like to keep it that way. I need to know only enough to believe God exists, not all about God..... and I do not want to hear from God or meet God in any dark alleys either...

My own view might best be expressed by asking if being an incoherent concept counts as a mystery.

But however it goes, good luck with that last bit ...

 

[blü 2]

The bible gives us a comprehensive picture of the Messiah as one who would come to redeem, to be "cut off" and die for his people.

Really? Where does it say the messiah must die, how does it say the messiah must effect redemption?

This Redeemer would return to conquer his enemies and reign over the earth.

The messiah would liberate = obtain political autonomy. I'm not aware of anything said of a messiah that would require him to die, or go away, and then come back to conquer. What text says that?

Those who rejected Him as Redeemer cannot reign with him as King. And the Jewish people would reject their Messiah and mourn for Him when he returns. I am not sure what Messiah you are thinking of, but this is my reading of the bible.

Redeemer in some sense other than political liberator?

 

[PureX]

My own view might best be expressed by asking if being an incoherent concept counts as a mystery.

But however it goes, good luck with that last bit ...

"Incoherence" is just a value judgment being imposed by our frustration at not being able to understand what's in front of us. And that frustration comes from the unfounded presumption that we should understand: that we are capable of understanding, so it must be the mystery that's flawed.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, reality matters. But so do the possibilities we see within the unknown. Reality presents us with the concrete here and now, but how we engage with it comes from our ability to see multiple possibilities, and to hope in their future. Both are crucial to our humanity.

I don't argue with that. But no evidence suggests that the supernatural is part is part of the possible, not least because the idea of a "real supernatural" is incoherent in itself.

 

[PureX]

I don't argue with that. But no evidence suggests that the supernatural is part is part of the possible, not least because the idea of a "real supernatural" is incoherent in itself.

I agree, but it's the TERM that's incoherent, here, not the reality. And as to "no evidence"; again, that falsely presumes that we are capable or recognizing such evidence should it exist; so that it must, then, not exist.

 

[blü 2]

"Incoherence" is just a value judgment being imposed by our frustration at not being able to understand what's in front of us. And that frustration comes from the unfounded presumption that we should understand: that we are capable of understanding, so it must be the mystery that's flawed.

It's true that incoherence is a judgment, but it's not an arbitrary judgment ─ incoherence can be demonstrated.

I don't think incoherence is a mystery either, a puzzle to be solved. Instead it points to the lack of meaning in the concept presented.

And again, in my view, what is true depends on what is objectively true ─ reality is the arbiter of the truth of any statement.

 

[blü 2]

I agree, but it's the TERM that's incoherent, here, not the reality. And as to "no evidence"; again, that falsely presumes that we are capable or recognizing such evidence should it exist; so that it must, then, not exist.

Not quite ─ the correct statement is that we have no reason to think the supernatural exists, not least because the concept of the supernatural is, as I said, incoherent.