Has Science Freed God?

[Guitar's Cry]

I came across a quote from Canadian author and musician Charles de Lint, from his book Dreams Underfoot:

The old gods and their magics did not dwindle away into murky memories of brownies and little fairies more at home in a Disney cartoon; rather, they changed. The coming of Christ and Christians actually freed them. They were no longer bound to people’s expectations but could now become anything that they could imagine themselves to be. They are still here, walking among us. We just don’t recognize them anymore.

I haven't read the book or anything else by the author, but this quote fascinates me. It suggests that rather than killing off or burying the pagan spiritual figures, they were released from their bondage of sacredness by the Christianity that sought to deny them. In being released, they were free to be whatever people wanted them to be.

Has modern science, in showing the mechanisms of the Universe, freed God from the dogma and expectations of religion, to be whatever people want or need it to be?

 

[Noaidi]

Interesting idea. Doesn't it demonstrate, though, that deities are a human construct and that they are applicable only to the circumstances of the time?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Interesting idea. Doesn't it demonstrate, though, that deities are a human construct and that they are applicable only to the circumstances of the time?

Perhaps. Does that relinquish their power?

 

[Noaidi]

Perhaps. Does that relinquish their power?

Do you mean their power in real terms (i.e. they exist and have real power) or that 'they have power' in the sense that people believe in them, worship them and act accordingly, but don't necessarily exist beyond an idea?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Do you mean their power in real terms (i.e. they exist and have real power) or that 'they have power' in the sense that people believe in them, worship them and act accordingly, but don't necessarily exist beyond an idea?

A symbol exists and has power so long as it inspires us. A deity as a symbol is free from physical restrictions so in that sense has more power than the ontological one.

I think that is the point of the thread. By removing the physical necessity of God, do we not have a more potent, or, as Orias puts it here, practical God in some ways?

 

[Noaidi]

A symbol exists and has power so long as it inspires us. A deity as a symbol is free from physical restrictions so in that sense has more power than the ontological one.

I think that is the point of the thread. By removing the physical necessity of God, do we not have a more potent, or, as Orias puts it here, practical God in some ways?

Yes, I agree that a deity as a symbol does have power for the followers. Is the deity, then, an archetype that people can use for whatever means, as opposed to an actual deity?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, I agree that a deity as a symbol does have power for the followers. Is the deity, then, an archetype that people can use for whatever means, as opposed to an actual deity?

Perhaps. I would think that an archetypal deity is usually the more likely. But in that way, the symbol becomes something that beckons deep within and--according to those like Jung or Joseph Campbell--acts as a sign stimulus to release certain instincts or reactions.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I came across a quote from Canadian author and musician Charles de Lint, from his book Dreams Underfoot:


I haven't read the book or anything else by the author, but this quote fascinates me. It suggests that rather than killing off or burying the pagan spiritual figures, they were released from their bondage of sacredness by the Christianity that sought to deny them. In being released, they were free to be whatever people wanted them to be.

Has modern science, in showing the mechanisms of the Universe, freed God from the dogma and expectations of religion, to be whatever people want or need it to be?

If that makes any sense, sure.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If that makes any sense, sure.

Does it?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Does it?

Probably not, even if you consider gods to be ideas or beings. Why would a god, spirit, fairy, etc feel the need to conform to our perceptions of them, unless humans control the gods?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Probably not, even if you consider gods to be ideas or beings. Why would a god, spirit, fairy, etc feel the need to conform to our perceptions of them, unless humans control the gods?

They appear to nonetheless, even without the freeing factors of a conquering alien religion or a rationally-based system. Zeus was many things throughout the history of Greece. The Goddesses changed often with the coming of patriarchal warrior tribes. (EDIT: Which would be a conquering alien religion. Drat!)

 

[Gjallarhorn]

They appear to nonetheless, even without the freeing factors of a conquering alien religion or a rationally-based system. Zeus was many things throughout the history of Greece. The Goddesses changed often with the coming of patriarchal warrior tribes. (EDIT: Which would be a conquering alien religion. Drat!)

But why? Ignoring the most obvious solution of us creating the gods, why would they change to suit us?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But why? Ignoring the most obvious solution of us creating the gods, why would they change to suit us?

They are a part of us and changing with us to suit our needs may be another suggestion. In the guise of an archetype, one may argue the essential inspiring symbol (or innate releasing mechanism if you're an animal behaviorist) remains while the mask changes with the times.