Collaboration Between Artist and Audience

[Gadianton]

Looking at some notes I need to follow up on but haven't: not too long ago I believe I discovered that the concept of "God" in the abstract, as a placeholder by which to say things like (as you mention in your OP) "most people believe in God (or a supreme being)" didn't exist until the 17th century. Prior to that, there was no way to say "we all believe in God" -- in the abstract.

The conspiracy is so deep, that even references to God that seem to support the concept in ancient times have either been altered to fit a modern view or are simply anachronisms and therefore a fabrication. For instance, the famous atheist "Epicurean paradox": "If God is all-powerful..." -- he couldn't have said it because there was no way to express that in his time.

Monotheism doesn't mean an ideal "one God", but means only worshiping one god. And not capitalizing "god" as Hitchens did couldn't have been disrespectful until the 17th century because it wasn't capitalized until then. Whether there is a connection between the capitalization and the turn-in-concept to "supreme being" placeholder, I don't know. But monotheism would be more like, I only follow Biden, not Biden and Trump.

A lot of work went into developing the megacept of "God", which is now just a natural part of language, and so much bigger than the imaginations of most people. I think by virtue of language there is a stable portion of of "God", the placeholder for the supreme being in the abstract, and so with the hard work done, the average Joe can debate secondary characteristics. Is God a white nationalist and a big Trump supporter? Is God a mind that fills every particle in the universe? Is Pikachu God?

In relation to the OP, I think that stable portion does its part in exasperating the extreme differences people have in what they mean by God, as Schmo observes, people have wildly different ideas. It's easy to slap the label onto whatever it is you think is the best or works for you. A less wordy way to put it might be, in the story a person is identified as a hero rather than shown to be a hero. If you had to demonstrate why your hero is a hero, rather than pronounce it, then it's a lot harder. Imagine trying to convey Trump as a hero if you couldn't use the word by describing him calling up Raffensperger and pressuring him to lie. Or cowering during an insurrection he started, or selling Bibles to people like Ajax for 59.99$.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Looking at some notes I need to follow up on but haven't: not too long ago I believe I discovered that the concept of "God" in the abstract, as a placeholder by which to say things like (as you mention in your OP) "most people believe in God (or a supreme being)" didn't exist until the 17th century. Prior to that, there was no way to say "we all believe in God" -- in the abstract.

The conspiracy is so deep, that even references to God that seem to support the concept in ancient times have either been altered to fit a modern view or are simply anachronisms and therefore a fabrication. For instance, the famous atheist "Epicurean paradox": "If God is all-powerful..." -- he couldn't have said it because there was no way to express that in his time.

Monotheism doesn't mean an ideal "one God", but means only worshiping one god. And not capitalizing "god" as Hitchens did couldn't have been disrespectful until the 17th century because it wasn't capitalized until then. Whether there is a connection between the capitalization and the turn-in-concept to "supreme being" placeholder, I don't know. But monotheism would be more like, I only follow Biden, not Biden and Trump.

A lot of work went into developing the megacept of "God", which is now just a natural part of language, and so much bigger than the imaginations of most people. I think by virtue of language there is a stable portion of of "God", the placeholder for the supreme being in the abstract, and so with the hard work done, the average Joe can debate secondary characteristics. Is God a white nationalist and a big Trump supporter? Is God a mind that fills every particle in the universe? Is Pikachu God?

In relation to the OP, I think that stable portion does its part in exasperating the extreme differences people have in what they mean by God, as Schmo observes, people have wildly different ideas. It's easy to slap the label onto whatever it is you think is the best or works for you. A less wordy way to put it might be, in the story a person is identified as a hero rather than shown to be a hero. If you had to demonstrate why your hero is a hero, rather than pronounce it, then it's a lot harder. Imagine trying to convey Trump as a hero if you couldn't use the word by describing him calling up Raffensperger and pressuring him to lie. Or cowering during an insurrection he started, or selling Bibles to people like Ajax for 59.99$.

Ouch!

I'm sure people from long ago would have been able to express sufficiently what they wanted to express. I am sure ancient knowledge in some ways probably was far superior to our current knowledge. I know people like to believe that we are the most advanced but something tells me that's rubbish.

[Gunnar]

Ouch!

I'm sure people from long ago would have been able to express sufficiently what they wanted to express. I am sure ancient knowledge in some ways probably was far superior to our current knowledge. I know people like to believe that we are the most advanced but something tells me that's rubbish.

I can acknowledge that some people in the distant past knew and practiced skills and techniques that we no longer know how or need to do, and they certainly knew details about their own contemporary reality that are now forever lost to history, but I don't believe they possessed basic, essential and comprehensive knowledge about hardly anything significant that was far superior in either quality or quantity to what is currently available to any of us with both the capacity and motivation to diligently and honestly seek and understand it. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that the wisest and most knowledgeable of our primitive ancestors make many (maybe even most) of us living today seem like fools and ignoramuses by comparison to them in many ways.

In other words, though there were undoubtedly wise people in the past, I don't believe any ancient knowledge is inherently superior to presently available knowledge, just because it is ancient. The greatest of ancient wisdom is great only if it has withstood the test of time.

[High Spy]

Ouch!

I'm sure people from long ago would have been able to express sufficiently what they wanted to express. I am sure ancient knowledge in some ways probably was far superior to our current knowledge. I know people like to believe that we are the most advanced but something tells me that's rubbish.

I can acknowledge that some people in the distant past knew and practiced skills and techniques that we no longer know how or need to do, and they certainly knew details about their own contemporary reality that are now forever lost to history, but I don't believe they possessed basic, essential and comprehensive knowledge about hardly anything significant that was far superior in either quality or quantity to what is currently available to any of us with both the capacity and motivation to diligently and honestly seek and understand it. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that the wisest and most knowledgeable of our primitive ancestors make many (maybe even most) of us living today seem like fools and ignoramuses by comparison to them in many ways.

In other words, though there were undoubtedly wise people in the past, I don't believe any ancient knowledge is inherently superior to presently available knowledge, just because it is ancient. The greatest of ancient wisdom is great only if it has withstood the test of time.

… ancient astronomers used the device to predict the colour of eclipses – which may have been seen as omens. "We are not quite sure how to interpret this, to be fair," said Edmunds. "But it could hark back to suggestions that the colour of an eclipse was some sort of omen or signal. Certain colours might be better for what's coming than other colours."

Using color to describe eclipses reminds me of the phrase “Pass with Flying Colors”.

[Gadianton]

I'm sure people from long ago would have been able to express sufficiently what they wanted to express.

Why wouldn't they have been able to? It's just that what they want to express is all determined by the boundaries of the language at that time. You can't want to express something that isn't thinkable within your language constraints.

I am sure ancient knowledge in some ways probably was far superior to our current knowledge.

You've been watching too much Ancient Aliens. Certainly, they were able to do things with what they had that we can't explain now. But all in all, our knowledge is far superior to that of the ancients.

I know people like to believe that we are the most advanced but something tells me that's rubbish.

The thing that is telling you that is all the cable TV programming and YouTube channels making money keeping people tantalized with possibilities of a magical past or connections to other worlds.

[Imwashingmypirate]

I'm sure people from long ago would have been able to express sufficiently what they wanted to express.

Why wouldn't they have been able to? It's just that what they want to express is all determined by the boundaries of the language at that time. You can't want to express something that isn't thinkable within your language constraints.

I am sure ancient knowledge in some ways probably was far superior to our current knowledge.

You've been watching too much Ancient Aliens. Certainly, they were able to do things with what they had that we can't explain now. But all in all, our knowledge is far superior to that of the ancients.

I know people like to believe that we are the most advanced but something tells me that's rubbish.

The thing that is telling you that is all the cable TV programming and YouTube channels making money keeping people tantalized with possibilities of a magical past or connections to other worlds.

Maybe. I haven't seen those programs but I do wonder.

Old architecture is far more superior than now. These new houses they build here are shocking. They throw them up.

[huckelberry]

I'm sure people from long ago would have been able to express sufficiently what they wanted to express.

Why wouldn't they have been able to? It's just that what they want to express is all determined by the boundaries of the language at that time. You can't want to express something that isn't thinkable within your language constraints.

I am sure ancient knowledge in some ways probably was far superior to our current knowledge.

You've been watching too much Ancient Aliens. Certainly, they were able to do things with what they had that we can't explain now. But all in all, our knowledge is far superior to that of the ancients.

Gadianton, I think there is reason to see the word question in reverse from your comment. People create new words, alter old words, combine words in order to talk about new observations ideas or fashions.Language is flexible and invented. I think when a word is missing in a culture the people either are not thinking of the matter unaware of it or thinking of it in a different fashion.

Ancient Aliens, I watched probably for first time a few days ago. EWE. It presented bits and pieces of information about discoveries of ancient human relatives or variants then proposed what if space people were doing genetic experiments . A what if presented with zero evidence and completely ignoring that some time a ago a fellow named Darwin presented the foundation of a good explanation for all these observations. Are people being trained not to think? Political observations lurk there.

[huckelberry]

Looking at some notes I need to follow up on but haven't: not too long ago I believe I discovered that the concept of "God" in the abstract, as a placeholder by which to say things like (as you mention in your OP) "most people believe in God (or a supreme being)" didn't exist until the 17th century. Prior to that, there was no way to say "we all believe in God" -- in the abstract.

The conspiracy is so deep, that even references to God that seem to support the concept in ancient times have either been altered to fit a modern view or are simply anachronisms and therefore a fabrication. For instance, the famous atheist "Epicurean paradox": "If God is all-powerful..." -- he couldn't have said it because there was no way to express that in his time.

Monotheism doesn't mean an ideal "one God", but means only worshiping one god. And not capitalizing "god" as Hitchens did couldn't have been disrespectful until the 17th century because it wasn't capitalized until then. Whether there is a connection between the capitalization and the turn-in-concept to "supreme being" placeholder, I don't know. But monotheism would be more like, I only follow Biden, not Biden and Trump.

A lot of work went into developing the megacept of "God", which is now just a natural part of language, and so much bigger than the imaginations of most people. I think by virtue of language there is a stable portion of of "God", the placeholder for the supreme being in the abstract, and so with the hard work done, the average Joe can debate secondary characteristics. Is God a white nationalist and a big Trump supporter? Is God a mind that fills every particle in the universe? Is Pikachu God?

In relation to the OP, I think that stable portion does its part in exasperating the extreme differences people have in what they mean by God, as Schmo observes, people have wildly different ideas. It's easy to slap the label onto whatever it is you think is the best or works for you. A less wordy way to put it might be, in the story a person is identified as a hero rather than shown to be a hero. If you had to demonstrate why your hero is a hero, rather than pronounce it, then it's a lot harder. Imagine trying to convey Trump as a hero if you couldn't use the word by describing him calling up Raffensperger and pressuring him to lie. Or cowering during an insurrection he started, or selling Bibles to people like Ajax for 59.99$.

Gadiaton, I find myself puzzled by your post here. I am unsure what you mean by the word god in the abstract. Theologians had been dealing with rational proofs of god for quite a while. Those refer to god in the abstract (depending on what you mean with in the abstract)

Perhaps mudding the water is the simple fact that people have used the word with a spread of somewhat related meanings. There is an idea of an ultimate creator referred to as god. However people may also call supposed subsidiary supernatural beings as gods. This makes the idea of monotheism rather mushy. I doubt it is possible to be completely clear what 3 Isaiah meant. He is not available for questioning.

Thinking of the 17th century I find myself thinking perhaps you refer to the development of deism and its method
of avoiding the charge of atheism which at that time was very socially unacceptable.

[Gadianton]

Gadiaton, I find myself puzzled by your post here. I am unsure what you mean by the word god in the abstract. Theologians had been dealing with rational proofs of god for quite a while. Those refer to god in the abstract (depending on what you mean with in the abstract)

Perhaps mudding the water is the simple fact that people have used the word with a spread of somewhat related meanings. There is an idea of an ultimate creator referred to as god. However people may also call supposed subsidiary supernatural beings as gods. This makes the idea of monotheism rather mushy. I doubt it is possible to be completely clear what 3 Isaiah meant. He is not available for questioning.

Thinking of the 17th century I find myself thinking perhaps you refer to the development of deism and its method
of avoiding the charge of atheism which at that time was very socially unacceptable.

I may not be a very good researcher. I have found this to be a difficult topic to find information on, even though it would seem to be pretty trivial. I agree with you that theologians in history do seem to be talking about God in the abstract, and Anselm is especially difficult to overlook. I'll have to post about that later.

For now, take the corollary problem of what it means to be an atheist. Here is a helpful rando web resource:

https://jcrt.org/religioustheory/2018/0 ... -zuchaber/

The major factor to be considered in relation to the phase of theological thinking about God that is to be covered in the following eight lectures is undoubtedly the radical change in the way religion has been understood and practiced in Western Europe over the past two or three hundred years. This includes, but is not limited to, the rise of atheism, which in itself is of course quite a significant factor to be considered in lectures on the topic of God.

To see this significance, we only have to remember that, as far as we know, atheism has never else existed as a practical, religious (or if you so wish: non-religious) option in the history of humankind before. Sure enough, there has been debate about atheism, and people have often been called atheists long before this time. Thus, in late antiquity Christians and Jews were called atheists by the “pagan” majority of the Greco-Roman world because they denied the existence of their many gods.

Christians in turn called pagans “atheists” because they did not know the true God. Up to the 17th century, in Europe atheism normally denoted the denial of God’s trinitarian nature. And even in 17th century France, where atheism in our modern sense of the word had become a favourite topic of intellectual debate, such debates could still be punctured by the admission that no one had actually ever met an atheist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

The term athéisme was coined in France in the sixteenth century. The word "atheist" appears in English books at least as early as 1566.[91] The concept of atheism re-emerged initially as a reaction to the intellectual and religious turmoil of the Age of Enlightenment and the Reformation, as a charge used by those who saw the denial of god and godlessness in the controversial positions being put forward by others...atheism was an epithet implying a lack of moral restraint.[93]

In early modern times, the first explicit atheist known by name was the German-languaged Danish critic of religion Matthias Knutzen (1646–after 1674), who published three atheist writings in 1674.[101] Knutzen was called "The only person on record who openly professed and taught atheism" in the 1789 Students Pocket Dictionary of Universal History by Thomas Mortimer.[102

[huckelberry]

Gadianton, some years ago I read a book called Montaillou. It is a social description of life in an early 14th century village in southern France. It is based upon detailed records made by the inquisition which was hunting Catharism. I found striking the comments of a shepherd there who clearly was an atheist. He believed in nothing but the natural physical world. The inquisition was not terribly concerned about him, they were hunting a religious movement. It would also matter that this shepherd was not teaching or creating an atheist movement. He was not a scholar. His presence did make me wonder whether there have not been many atheists down the ages who minded their own business about it not to create a fuss.