Should God be Exported to Mars?

Rxke · 2004-02-20 16:36:55

Thanks for reviving some neurons, Cindy!

*flash*: since the 'desert environment' doesnt exhibit the cyclical rhythm of nature, (because it is in essence *life-less*)
...but a more time-less (eternal) one, and thus linear(?) this corrobates (wow, an expensive new word!) with what you say...

Could the '40 years in the desert' by Moses be seen as an abstraction to just that errrr... paradigm-shift? (another expensive and probably wrong one!)

I mean... '40 years in desert' could be translated to ... 'shedding' of the cyclical (polytheism) to the monotheism religion...

Palomar · 2004-02-20 17:09:20

*No problem, Rik.

In conjunction with what you are discussing, I believe Judaism -might- have recorded in its Qabala (Kabalah, Caballah...there are a variety of ways to spell it) the evolutionary leap into language.

There is mentioned in Qabala material a "terrible word" being "uttered." And before this "terrible word" was chaos, darkness -- Typhon, goddess of darkness giving birth to light.

When I read that, a chill went down my spine. Did the Qabala document the occurrence of humanoids without language proceeding to the psychological quantum leap of humans WITH language? The "terrible word" was described as guttural, harsh -- almost frightening. Just about what you might expect from the first true utterance in spoken language I suppose.

Darkness = animal-instinctual mind without language?
Light = dramatic expansion of consciousness due to language?

I can't read Hebrew, so I don't know; and the source was a Western-based mystical sect (in English of course). I have come across one other such reference to "the terrible word" in a different source, but information is very scanty. I suppose taking lessons in Qabala at a local synogogue might develop the idea more (I don't know though).

Religion does offer interesting considerations as the field of psychology goes (I mean this in a *complimentary* way...NOT disparaging). Carl G. Jung had some very intriguing ideas as well.

--Cindy

Scott G. Beach · 2004-02-20 17:27:34

Gennaro

You wrote, "I just think humanity has left the religious stage behind." Your reference to "the religious stage" reminded me of James George Frazer's view of our intellectual evolution. In a book titled The Study of Culture (1974), anthropologist L. L. Langness summarized Frazer's views on religion. Langness wrote, "James George Frazer, who had been stimulated by Tylor, in his classic work, The Golden Bough (1890), not only set forth the principles of magic for the first time, but argued that magic was an early form of science based upon incorrect notions of cause and effect -- basically that things which were similar or had once been in contact with each other could affect or continue to affect each other at a distance. Out of this faulty magical belief, Frazer argued, arose religion, a higher achievement but one still trying to cope with the question of causality. Finally, he felt, science would inevitably emerge as the correct way of dealing with this question."

As scientific knowledge accumulates, a worldview called naturalism becomes stronger and stronger, and supernatural worldviews weaken. However, religion is about more than explaining cause and effect. Humans reproduce sexually and they are social animals. Their behaviors are regulated by their emotional responses to their environments and to each other. One of the primary functions of religion is to help people to deal the their emotional response to stressful situations (e.g., danger and uncertainty). Until humans achieve the kind of non-emotional intellectualism that Science Officer Spock (of the Starship Enterprise) practiced then most people will probably continue to be religious. So I believe that is premature for you to conclude that we have "left the religious stage behind."

Alt2War · 2004-02-20 18:48:29

*No problem, Rik.
In conjunction with what you are discussing, I believe Judaism -might- have recorded in its Qabala (Kabalah, Caballah...there are a variety of ways to spell it) the evolutionary leap into language.
There is mentioned in Qabala material a "terrible word" being "uttered." And before this "terrible word" was chaos, darkness -- Typhon, goddess of darkness giving birth to light.
When I read that, a chill went down my spine. Did the Qabala document the occurrence of humanoids without language proceeding to the psychological quantum leap of humans WITH language? The "terrible word" was described as guttural, harsh -- almost frightening. Just about what you might expect from the first true utterance in spoken language I suppose.
Darkness = animal-instinctual mind without language?
Light = dramatic expansion of consciousness due to language?
I can't read Hebrew, so I don't know; and the source was a Western-based mystical sect (in English of course). I have come across one other such reference to "the terrible word" in a different source, but information is very scanty. I suppose taking lessons in Qabala at a local synogogue might develop the idea more (I don't know though).
Religion does offer interesting considerations as the field of psychology goes (I mean this in a *complimentary* way...NOT disparaging). Carl G. Jung had some very intriguing ideas as well.
--Cindy

According to western bastardised Kaballah

The universe was created first by the utterance of 10 words, the 10 names of god.

Those words, as vessels for their meaning, could not hold. They shattered.

I enjoy speculating about the true history of man that is evident in the myths, especially biblical ones.

I enjoy the the story about Adam and Eve and how it relates to the beginnings of agraculture.

The story of Cain and Able can be construed to mean the advancement of agricultural civilization out of the fertile crescent, killing his brother Able the hunter-gatherer.

Earthfirst · 2004-02-20 22:15:50

I think god should be brought to mars you bunch of atheist sum. Anys ways the god of war all ready lives there Mars, thats why the planet looks red right!

Hazer · 2004-02-21 13:18:41

That made absolutely no sense at all. Think before you post.

replicant7 · 2004-02-24 03:08:43

I for one "left the religious stage behind"....a long time ago. Was brought up in a strict catholic environment only to realise at about the age of 11 that it was all just psychological crap to control the masses...much like any other religion. I reckon it would be best to leave all that stuff behind when colonizing Mars. If individuals want to cling to their beliefs within their own private confines....fine....but no bible-thumpers..please!

Scott G. Beach · 2004-02-24 13:05:58

replicant7:

You wrote that you were, "brought up in a strict catholic environment only to realise at about the age of 11 that it was all just psychological crap to control the masses...much like any other religion."

Yes, religious doctrines can be used to support institutionalized social control mechanisms in complex societies (chiefdoms and states). In simpler societies (bands and tribes) religious doctrines reinforce social bonds and provide rules for dealing with stressful situations. For example, religion usually provides rules for dealing with the corpse of a deceased family member.

Imagine that you live in a tribal society and had to do something with your mother's corpse. The religious beliefs of your tribe might direct you to dig a hole in the floor of your house and bury the corpse there. Imagine that there were several generations of your ancestors buried under that floor and that you expect to be buried there too someday by your children. And as a part of their religious education, you instruct your children how to deal with your corpse. When you die, they will have the comfort of knowing that they are doing "the right thing" when they bury you. And they may find comfort in the belief that your spirit has traveled to another realm of existence where, reunited with your ancestors, you will be at peace.

In summary, religion is not just a means to "control the masses." Religion also helps people to deal with stressful situations. We should therefore expect some sort of religious practices to be part of Martian culture. These practices may or may not include beliefs about an all-powerful god who endorses the actions of the Chief and his henchmen, the King and his knights, or the President and his police.

replicant7 · 2004-02-25 09:58:35

Presumably, any human civilization settling on Mars is not likely to originate from ?simpler societies?. On the contrary, they will be drawn from the most civilised specimens of the human race. So that comparison doesn?t really hold true for a Martian civilization?.it will not be tribal...will it ?
On a more personal level, I hope to be cremated rather than buried?seems much tidier?.I never liked the idea of all those maggots feasting on my spaceship anyhow.
As far as ?religion helping people to deal with stressful situations??..well sure?.it works for those who choose to believe in ?whatever? God?..but personally, I have managed to deal with extremely stressful situations without the need for that sort of crutch. But hey?..different strokes for different folks?I don?t have a problem with anyone that feels the need to worship an ?almighty??.as long as they don?t try and force it in my face?or use their religion as an excuse for carrying out fanatical atrocities and all the rest.
I reckon a civilization settling on Mars is going to be far better off without any of that?.but if individuals feel the need any time to make peace with their makers?no problem?..but best kept to the confines of their own room.

RobS · 2004-02-25 21:53:22

Whether one thinks religion should be exported to Mars or not, it will. Many of the current astronauts are religious; just do a Google search on astronaut and religion and see what you get. Some lead Bible study in their churches. At least one Apollo astronaut became a committed Christian as a result of the moon flight. There has even been a Baha'i astronaut (pretty surprising, since they are 1/2000th of the US population). I don't see the astronaut corps being very diferent at the time of a Mars landing.

-- RobS

Preston · 2004-02-26 00:59:09

This comment is directed mainly toward clark.

You mentioned how science does not tell us anything about the 'whys' of the world, and it is true that science tends to indicate that there is no meaning, just a froth of simple structures and physical laws.

Science, however, while it doesn't have any "whys" in it, does do a good job at telling us how it is that we think there are whys.

Basically, anthropology and evolution tells us why we think meat is tasty, why families are core units of society, why their is an appeal to love thy neighbor, to hate some neighbors and those that are too different from us, etc. Science explains how it is that we came to want things and attach moral values to different motivations and actions (propagation of genes and closely related genes being the fundamental source of almost all behaviors, desires and morals; the rest being rare random anomalies and curiousities of this miniscule fraction of the earth's history wherein biology has not entirely caught up with civilization, e.g. genetic engineering and uncommon celibacy).

Some scientists say that there just might be a link between evolution and the mystery of love and marriage.

The naturalistic chain from physics to chemistry and so on eventually 'derives' biology, psychology and sociology (rather we discover and understand how the chain is connected, since deriving the whole thing from physics would be too complicated), and the chain appears to be pretty meaningless, only a bunch of 'hows'. So there really is no 'ought' as a part of the truth of reality.

replicant7 · 2004-02-26 08:27:26

hope when they get there that they spend their time building worthwhile stuff though.....not temples, mosques, synagogues and catherdals.

clark · 2004-02-26 08:54:41

Preston,

Science can dissect human behavior and demonstrate through the scientific process which behaviors are influenced by which genes, the evolutionary adaptations that have led to successful propagation of the species which have influenced social unit formation, and any other direct cause-effect relationship you care to point out. However, it cannot tell us the actual value of any behavior other than if it results in successful propagation of the species. It can?t even tell us if that is a ?good? thing, or a ?bad? thing. Science simply describes what can be measured. It defines process, not results.

Science can explain what makes us feel hate, love, or disinterest; yet science cannot tell us why we feel in the first place. We can make a guess as to the value of feelings related to cause-effect relationships and their effect upon species propagation, but we can discern no further.

I would also like to note that in all of the animal kingdom, humans are the only ones capable of directing our own behavior. An animal is hungry, it eats. We see millions starve themselves on purpose for self-esteem issues. An animal wishes to mate, it looks for another of it?s species- we on the other hand can be madly in love, but choose not to follow through on our desires.

Now, if science can dissect how we think, how we interpret reality, it tells us that the human mind is designed to develop coherence from chaos. What we think we see isn?t necessarily what is. Yet the opposite is also true, what we do see may very well be what is.

What this all means, when taken as a whole, is that we are driven by something that we can understand via science, but we also learn via science that we, ourselves, can direct our own behavior (which science says drives us!). Now what? Why do we do the things we do, or why do we not do things we might? Science can?t explain it anymore because for whatever reason, we think.

Sure, we can take a look at anthropology and psychology, try to understand choices via social constructs and societal influence on individual choices, but now we have stepped away from the bedrock science of cause-effect measured relationships. We start delving into the world of intent, interpretation, and our own preponderance to apply form to that which has none. We open up the possibility of interpretative bias because we understand others exhibited behaviors in relation to our own. It?s totally subjective.

So while we can both agree why something drives us to do something, we won?t necessarily agree that it is a ?good? thing, or a ?bad? thing. Now, just because we can?t agree if something is good or not doesn?t mean that it isn?t or it is. It has no value other than what we assign to it, which is determined by societal influences and genetic predisposition, with independent free will in there somewhere, I think?

Now you might start to see the circle that is forming here, a loop as it were. The only way out of it is to develop a set of values for that which has no value, and then get as many people as you can to agree. Thus, religion, morality, laws, rules, traditions, cultural norms, etc. Yet science will not give us those values, it is something that it just isn?t designed to do, nor should it be used for assigning values.

So we end up coming up with a subjective value system, and call it objective, because there simply is no way to categorically prove an objective value related to something being ?good? or ?bad?. Science can?t prove it, and belief just says, ?it is so."

Bill White · 2004-02-26 11:30:25

hope when they get there that they spend their time building worthwhile stuff though.....not temples, mosques, synagogues and catherdals.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)

= = =

Jodie Foster said something similiar near the end of the movie Contact - - when asked about ET life the only honest answer is "I don't know" - - restrict ourselves to Reason and we must answer the same about God.

= = =

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ?This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said; grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed?? A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth the reserves of reverence
and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

CARL SAGAN,
Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, 1994

clark · 2004-02-26 11:44:17

The universe is a huge marvelous creation, therefor it must be good, and therefor God must be good.

Now whose playing Dr. Pangloss?

Palomar · 2004-02-26 11:47:07

*Interesting points, Bill.

I've known of religionists who are NOT happy, complain they are unfulfilled, bored with life, are frustrated (self-admitted) by the lack of depth in their religious lives and are always working and working to keep the fire stoked as it were.

On the other hand, I've known outspoken anti-religionists and proclaimed hedonists who are unhappy and frustrated too -- VERY unhappy.

The closest I can come to religion (or studying religious thought) would have to be in the context of Carl G. Jung's writings, theories, etc...as relates to *psychology*.

Not that I'm a great armchair student of psychology, but I think he was onto something regarding the recurrence of archetypal images within the human mind -- particularly as relates to *symbols* (not just in dreams -- I mean tangible symbols carved on rocks by primitive peoples, etc.), which seem to continue to echo down the corridors of time and change within the human mind.

Psychology holds many keys to understanding the human mind (not intended to be an "obvious" statement; on the contrary, many people "diss" psychology)...and I think religion *can* (but -not- always *does*) assist in this understanding, but more from a detached point of view in observing how it works and how patterns within religious movements tend to repeat themselves, etc. Sociology could be included in this, obviously.

But I'm not sure how much religion is natural to people versus how much of it (wherever and amongst whatever group of people) is the result of socialization, communal bonds, identification, etc. For instance, generational Lutherans. Or the folks in my hometown who belong to a church because their ancestors did, and who have formed very indepth, personal relations within and around that little community called "my church."

I'm agnostic, as mentioned many times before. Religion doesn't appeal to me at all, personally. It can be interesting to study from the standpoint of psychology and sociology, etc...but that's about it.

Sagan's quote is especially interesting.

By the way: Just *how* is religion being defined in these conversations? I mean your own definition of what the word "religion" means and implies...not Webster's definition.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-02-26 12:07:51

The universe is a huge marvelous creation, therefor it must be good, and therefor God must be good.
Now whose playing Dr. Pangloss?

Carl Sagan. I merely quoted him.

= = =

By the way, on creationism and evolution, it strikes me that folks who cannot believe BECAUSE science teaches we are all descended from the so-called lower animals and ultimately from self-replicating amino acid chains suffer from a lack of faith, not an excess of it.

So what if humans are merely a phenonena of atoms and molecules in motion - - IF there exists a God outside of space/time surely such an entity could love us and save us, if it choose to. Remember - - I said "IF"

:;):

= = =

How "small" must Jerry Falwell's God be, if Darwin and Dawkins need to be wrong for him/her/it to exist?

Bill White · 2004-02-26 12:37:41

Cindy writes:

Sagan's quote is especially interesting.

I have come to believe that Carl Sagan internalized much of the very best of Jewish thought - - perhaps in ways he was not consciously aware of. Probably I am wrong yet its a conclusion I cannot easily escape from.

Rand Simberg today wrote an interesting comment about Andrew Sullivan, saying he was about "as Catholic as an open homosexual could possibly be" or something like that. http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/

Memes are devious things, finding their way into all sorts of places one would never expect.

Palomar · 2004-02-26 12:54:02

By the way, on creationism and evolution, it strikes me that folks who cannot believe BECAUSE science teaches we are all descended from the so-called lower animals and ultimately from self-replicating amino acid chains suffer from a lack of faith, not an excess of it.
So what if humans are merely a phenonena of atoms and molecules in motion - - IF there exists a God outside of space/time surely such an entity could love us and save us, if it choose to. Remember - - I said "IF"
:;):
= = =
How "small" must Jerry Falwell's God be, if Darwin and Dawkins need to be wrong for him/her/it to exist?

*I see your points.

What I never have been able to "get", as regards the more intensive types of religions, is why so many of them seem to be dour, demanding, full of denial of pleasure, denial of instinct, etc.

A lot of religions seem to be based on/have their emphasis on denial and sacrifice. Maybe it's an inward reflection of their outward circumstances (financial, as relates to opportunity, etc. -- i.e. Puritanism in the old days; they didn't have much, couldn't afford much, so pretended to be happy with LACK, proclaimed it a virtue, etc.).

I know of intense religionists who talk about "should not" do this and "should not" do that; they deprive themselves to quite an incredible degree. If that's what they want to do with their own lives, it's their prerogative of course (just don't try to force it on other people...of course).

I've always been stumped by that attitude: Denial, deprivation, sacrifice, etc.

If you really appreciate and claim to love an artist, don't you revel in and enjoy his or her work?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-02-26 13:07:11

I've always been stumped by that attitude: Denial, deprivation, sacrifice, etc.

Me too! Which is why I have a hard time reconciling my desire to see people on Mars. I still have a hard time understanding why someone would really want to live on Mars, considering it is nothing but deprivation, sacrfice, and denial

Palomar · 2004-02-26 14:01:49

I've always been stumped by that attitude: Denial, deprivation, sacrifice, etc.
Me too! Which is why I have a hard time reconciling my desire to see people on Mars. I still have a hard time understanding why someone would really want to live on Mars, considering it is nothing but deprivation, sacrfice, and denial

*That coming from the guy who seems to insist we go back to the Moon, however.

I meant my statements within the context of religion, Clark.

Will there be hardships on Mars? Of course...but I wasn't talking about Mars. I was speaking in the context of religion.
I think I'll crown you The King of Misdirection.
[I mean that in the best possible way, of course. ]

Besides, I doubt Marsians will *want to* remain in hardship; they'll be working their patooties off to make life as easy and comfortable (and, dare I say, as beautiful) as they can -- as quickly as they can. It's called intelligent survival, I think.

There's a difference between "Thou Shalt Be Deprived" versus hardships in general (which, IMO, sane people attempt to overcome...and not wallow in).

--Cindy

P.S.: You know...for a person so (seemingly) opposed to going to Mars, you sure hang around these boards a lot. :;):

Bill White · 2004-02-26 14:03:43

I've always been stumped by that attitude: Denial, deprivation, sacrifice, etc.
Me too! Which is why I have a hard time reconciling my desire to see people on Mars. I still have a hard time understanding why someone would really want to live on Mars, considering it is nothing but deprivation, sacrfice, and denial

Sublimation. Thats how you "find the path"

clark · 2004-02-26 14:20:53

I mean mine in the context of religion as well.

Perhaps it's just my quriky way of looking at this, but I see this overriding desire to see people on a red dirt ball of a planet as something of a bit like religion. I mean, going there has indirect benefits, but living there? Not really. But that realization dosen't quench the thirst. That hunger. It's just a feeling, nothing more.

It's a bit like the draw to build a sand castle on the beach. You know the tides will come, but you build anyway. There's no sense to the madness, but it makes perfect sense all the same. So too this craving for people to live on Mars.

Besides, don't scold me, as you are so quick to point out, this is a message board intended to discuss Mars, so I think my post applies. [friendly ribbing with the elbows]

And I'm not opposed to people going to Mars. I support the endeavour fully.

Bill White · 2004-02-26 14:39:43

Sorry for being flippant. I have strong trollish streaks to my personality, perhaps in a gentle sort of way.

Actually, your question is the true subject of my book and my goal is to "show, not tell. . ." my best efforts at answering.

IMHO, the answers may lie at the core of how we answer (or deny or avoid) "meaning of life" questions.

I do know I would make a lousy Mars settler.

clark · 2004-02-26 14:51:57

Bill White, the gentle troll. He dosen't so much as jump out at you from beneath the bridge, no, it's more of a deep throated growl with some slightly audible thumps on the bridge as you walk overhead. :laugh:

[grrrrrlousygoodfernuthwadyajustallshutupgrrrrr] :laugh:

I would make a lousy settler as well. But I would be a great test subject for the effects of martian vacum on the human body if I were to go... :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-02-20 16:36:55

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#27 2004-02-20 17:09:20

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#28 2004-02-20 17:27:34

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#29 2004-02-20 18:48:29

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#30 2004-02-20 22:15:50

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#31 2004-02-21 13:18:41

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#32 2004-02-24 03:08:43

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#33 2004-02-24 13:05:58

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#34 2004-02-25 09:58:35

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#35 2004-02-25 21:53:22

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#36 2004-02-26 00:59:09

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#37 2004-02-26 08:27:26

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#38 2004-02-26 08:54:41

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#39 2004-02-26 11:30:25

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#40 2004-02-26 11:44:17

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#41 2004-02-26 11:47:07

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#42 2004-02-26 12:07:51

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#43 2004-02-26 12:37:41

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#44 2004-02-26 12:54:02

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#45 2004-02-26 13:07:11

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#46 2004-02-26 14:01:49

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#47 2004-02-26 14:03:43

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#48 2004-02-26 14:20:53

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#49 2004-02-26 14:39:43

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

#50 2004-02-26 14:51:57

Re: Should God be Exported to Mars?

Board footer