Why Debate the Existence of God, I Mean, What's The Point?

[Bunyip]

No, you're not offending, but again, remember by "myth" I don't mean "lie." Progress is a story or narrative we tell ourselves because it is not objectively true. It's based on value judgements. Whenever we say some thing is "better" or "worse" than some other thing, that's a value judgement. What one person considers "better" is not what another person will consider "better."

The myth of progress in particular requires a very anthropocentric perspective that I do not have. As humans have gotten "better" by increasing their flourishing, the rest of the world has not. You tell a mythology of human progress. I tell a mythology of how human "progress" has raped the planet and committed ecological genocide. I find anthropocentric ethical perspectives backwards and bankrupt, and I do not place humans or their needs at the center of the entire universe.

There's more to it than that. There are other stories I tell. I tend to see time in circular terms, while the myth of progress demands that time be linear. The mythology of progress insists the trajectory is a constant up and up, with all things getting better and better, with what we do inevitably being superior to that which came before. The stories I tell of time are cyclical like the four seasons: there are periods of growth and flourishing, then decay and death, and then the void out of which new things arise again... rinse and repeat. I also tell stories that prompt me to value our diversity and different ways of doing things. This means I respect other culture's ways, even if they are not my own; I would not be the person who wants to convert humanity to one way of doing politics, one way of doing religion (or irreligion), and so forth. That's one thing that really makes me nervous about the mythology of progress: it squashes diversity. It speaks of there being one right or best way of doing things, and that we should all do it. That is so boring! And worse, it sounds so intolerant of other ways of being!

But I'm rambling. Maybe something in here has helped to facilitate understanding; I don't at all wish you to abandon your narratives. There is beauty in the mythology of progress; Star Trek TNG is one of my favorite TV shows, and it epitomes the myth of progress. I am very skeptical of us getting there, but people like you mean there is a possibility.

Thanks for the response, but I still can not understand your meaning. It is most likely a failure on my part.How anyone could imagine the freedoms, liberties, health, comfort and security of the modern age as anything other than progress I honestly can not imagine. You speak of diversity also, and yet modern societies tend to be more diverse, inclusive and tolerant than any in the ancient world.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist. Maybe I'm just lucky to live in a safe and beautiful place.

Thanks for engaging with me on this.

 

[icehorse]

No, you're not offending, but again, remember by "myth" I don't mean "lie." Progress is a story or narrative we tell ourselves because it is not objectively true. It's based on value judgements. Whenever we say some thing is "better" or "worse" than some other thing, that's a value judgement. What one person considers "better" is not what another person will consider "better."

The myth of progress in particular requires a very anthropocentric perspective that I do not have. As humans have gotten "better" by increasing their flourishing, the rest of the world has not. You tell a mythology of human progress. I tell a mythology of how human "progress" has raped the planet and committed ecological genocide. I find anthropocentric ethical perspectives backwards and bankrupt, and I do not place humans or their needs at the center of the entire universe.

There's more to it than that. There are other stories I tell. I tend to see time in circular terms, while the myth of progress demands that time be linear. The mythology of progress insists the trajectory is a constant up and up, with all things getting better and better, with what we do inevitably being superior to that which came before. The stories I tell of time are cyclical like the four seasons: there are periods of growth and flourishing, then decay and death, and then the void out of which new things arise again... rinse and repeat. I also tell stories that prompt me to value our diversity and different ways of doing things. This means I respect other culture's ways, even if they are not my own; I would not be the person who wants to convert humanity to one way of doing politics, one way of doing religion (or irreligion), and so forth. That's one thing that really makes me nervous about the mythology of progress: it squashes diversity. It speaks of there being one right or best way of doing things, and that we should all do it. That is so boring! And worse, it sounds so intolerant of other ways of being!

But I'm rambling. Maybe something in here has helped to facilitate understanding; I don't at all wish you to abandon your narratives. There is beauty in the mythology of progress; Star Trek TNG is one of my favorite TV shows, and it epitomes the myth of progress. I am very skeptical of us getting there, but people like you mean there is a possibility.

Really nice perspective.

Do you know of the book "The Moral Landscape"? Your post reminds me of it, for example the idea that there is no one "right" version of progress.

 

[chinu]

I hope you realize that such a question isn't really very honest.

What makes it dishonest ? tell me

 

[Bunyip]

Quintessence, The mythology of progress insists the trajectory is a constant up and up, with all things getting better and better, with what we do inevitably being superior to that which came before.

But progress is not a mythology, that makes no sense. The 'mythology of progress' insists nothing, it is not an agency or an entity. That progress is not on a constant trajectory seems self evident. You seem to be anthropomorphising a noun - hiw that makes sense to you I just can't see.

The stories I tell of time are cyclical like the four seasons: there are periods of growth and flourishing, then decay and death, and then the void out of which new things arise again... rinse and repeat. I also tell stories that prompt me to value our diversity and different ways of doing things. This means I respect other culture's ways, even if they are not my own; I would not be the person who wants to convert humanity to one way of doing politics, one way of doing religion (or irreligion), and so forth. That's one thing that really makes me nervous about the mythology of progress: it squashes diversity. It speaks of there being one right or best way of doing things, and that we should all do it. That is so boring! And worse, it sounds so intolerant of other ways of being!

Again your response seems rather bizarre - progress does not and can not do any of those things. It does not squash diversity, or speak of their being a right way to do things etc - it is just a process, not an agency. As societies progress, they tend to become MORE diverse, not less so. MORE tolerant.

I appreciate your responses, but you have not in any way explained how you could imagine progress to be a myth, or what it is that you find objectionable about progress.

Without progress, you would either be dead, or shivering in terror in a cave somewhere. It would make far more sense if you were arguing that progress has moved humanity away from a world of intolerance, 'one right way' and so on.

 

[LuisDantas]

What makes it dishonest ? tell me

Its premise that God exists, unstated and yet forced upon the other.

 

[chinu]

Its premise that God exists, unstated and yet forced upon the other.

Oh! So that's the reason,
Never mind

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't it a good enough reason?

I truly wonder how you feel about it.

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks for the response, but I still can not understand your meaning. It is most likely a failure on my part.How anyone could imagine the freedoms, liberties, health, comfort and security of the modern age as anything other than progress I honestly can not imagine. You speak of diversity also, and yet modern societies tend to be more diverse, inclusive and tolerant than any in the ancient world.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist. Maybe I'm just lucky to live in a safe and beautiful place.

Thanks for engaging with me on this.

Well, maybe I can phrase things this way. When I remove all of my own biases and value judgements, I see reality as a series of changes and transformations. If I choose to call something "progress" or "regression" that is me inserting value judgements. I recognize terms like that as projections onto reality, or narratives we tell about it, rather than neutral or objective observations of phenomena.

But yeah, obviously if I project my own value judgements onto everything, I can speak of "progress" and "regression" as much as the next human. Even when I do though, I don't quite paint it in the same way you do because my ethics are ecocentric, not anthropocentric. I cannot ignore the level of unnecessary destruction my species has wrought on the rest of the world, which mean I cannot regard my culture's common notion of "progress" as ethical.

Really nice perspective.

Do you know of the book "The Moral Landscape"? Your post reminds me of it, for example the idea that there is no one "right" version of progress.

It sounds extremely familiar. Who was the author? I don't think I've read it though.

But yes, this might be a good way of explaining where I sit too. I'm not the sort of person who sees Truth, I see truths. I have my way as much as the next guy, but I'm reticent to call my vision "progress" and someone else's "primitivism." It just... sounds disrespectful to me, I guess? And not at all dissimilar from proselytization and (forced) conversion?

Which in a roundabout ways brings me to this I want to comment on:

Again your response seems rather bizarre - progress does not and can not do any of those things. It does not squash diversity, or speak of their being a right way to do things etc - it is just a process, not an agency. As societies progress, they tend to become MORE diverse, not less so. MORE tolerant.

That's not what I've observed. Historically, Western nations push their ways onto everybody else, which dramatically alters other cultures, or, in some cases, outright eliminates them. Progress pushers tend to have a specific vision of what they think society ought to be and exclude other alternatives from consideration. The other models are "bad" or "wrong" for whatever reason they feel like coming up with based on their values. Demanding for example that all nations have a democratic society with equal opportunity for citizens definitely homogenizes. We think it is our business to wipe out any cultural practice we don't agree with if we believe it is against our notion of "progress." That's where the mythology of progress gets dangerous. I'm reminded of the cultural genocide of native peoples on my own continent. All of that was in the name of "progress" and "culturing savages" or "primitives."

As they say, history tends to be written by the winners. And the winners will paint themselves as "progress" and the losers as backwards "primitives."

 

[Bunyip]

Well, maybe I can phrase things this way. When I remove all of my own biases and value judgements, I see reality as a series of changes and transformations. If I choose to call something "progress" or "regression" that is me inserting value judgements. I recognize terms like that as projections onto reality, or narratives we tell about it, rather than neutral or objective observations of phenomena.

But yeah, obviously if I project my own value judgements onto everything, I can speak of "progress" and "regression" as much as the next human. Even when I do though, I don't quite paint it in the same way you do because my ethics are ecocentric, not anthropocentric. I cannot ignore the level of unnecessary destruction my species has wrought on the rest of the world, which mean I cannot regard my culture's common notion of "progress" as ethical.

You are leaping to some truly vast and frankly wildly innaccurate assumptions. I would not see humanity as being seperate from nature, and so am neither ecocentric or anthropocentric. Not to forget that vulcanism is just one of many factors that has reaped far more destruction on the earth than any species ever has.

But yes, this might be a good way of explaining where I sit too. I'm not the sort of person who sees Truth, I see truths. I have my way as much as the next guy, but I'm reticent to call my vision "progress" and someone else's "primitivism." It just... sounds disrespectful to me, I guess? And not at all dissimilar from proselytization and (forced) conversion?

How the heck did you get from our conversation to talking about an unnamed individual who judges some other unnamed person's vision to forced conversion?

Sorry, but primitive societies progressed enormously overtime - they began agriculture, smelting metals and so on, how are you even relating any of that to forced conversions?

Being forced to worship god is something that society has progressed past, it was commonplace up until the 18th century. So how are you linking an evil practice from the past with progress - and then calling that movement away from such things as forced conversion 'not dissimilar' to forced conversions?

Which in a roundabout ways brings me to this I want to comment on:



That's not what I've observed. Historically, Western nations push their ways onto everybody else, which dramatically alters other cultures, or, in some cases, outright eliminates them. Progress pushers tend to have a specific vision of what they think society ought to be and exclude other alternatives from consideration.

Who on earth are these 'progress pushers'? Yet again, your analogy would make far more sense if you were discussing the Christian Church as it spread across the earth and assimilated other cultures and beliefs - and yet again it is a practice society is moving away from and not towards.

The other models are "bad" or "wrong" for whatever reason they feel like coming up with based on their values. Demanding for example that all nations have a democratic society with equal opportunity for citizens definitely homogenizes. We think it is our business to wipe out any cultural practice we don't agree with if we believe it is against our notion of "progress." That's where the mythology of progress gets dangerous. I'm reminded of the cultural genocide of native peoples on my own continent. All of that was in the name of "progress" and "culturing savages" or "primitives."

I'm truly sorry, but I am failing to see where you are coming from - progress is not an organisation, I don't think that progress has anything whatsoever to do with cultural genocide, homogenisation or 'wiping out any cultural practice' - those things are all regressive not progressive.

As they say, history tends to be written by the winners. And the winners will paint themselves as "progress" and the losers as backwards "primitives."

What?

Perhaps you are speaking in metaphors and using some form of meaning for 'progress' that is not the common meaning.
I am an educated man, I studied history and politics and acheived extremely well in my studies. Unfortunately as I read your responses I become less and less able to decipher your meaning. For this last post, I honestly can make no sense of what it is you are trying to communicate whatsoever.

How it is that you could imagine progress to be a myth, or what you mean by that I still have no idea.

My sincere apologies and thankyou for taking the time to respond. But how you are linking progress to myth, forced conversions, intolerance or any kind of cultural judgement remains a mystery to me.

Can I give you some examples of what I would take progess to mean, and then you could identify any that you see as mythological or similar to 'forced conversion' etc ok? Then at least I will have some idea where you are coming from.

Anaesthetics, basic sanitation, plumbing, dentistry, agriculture, freedom of religion, abolishion of slavery, sexual equality, refridgeration, democracy, social welfare, human rights, the printing press, electricity.