Ontological Status of Mother Nature

[Nihilistic Seraph]

Starlock

Nihilistic Seraph

.Curiously.Fruity.

Why, being a pagan, must one 'reject' the idea of creationism? It seems a bit silly to me. In Kemeticism there was creation, Ma'at, Ra and another God created the world and gave it rules, however, does this mean that evolution didn't occur? Of course it doesn't.

To me, I don't see 'Mother Nature' as being a deity that 'created' Earth. But rather a deity that balances nature and creates and puts forth those subtle changes known as evolution.

Perhaps, I've totally misunderstood what you've asked, but eh, it makes sense to me. biggrin

Creationism in paganism has all the same problems as it does in monotheism - who created the creator? The problem of causation, which no mythology I've run into has satifactorily answered for myself. If you think about them on a metaphorical sense, maybe they work though.

Except that wouldn't the Pagan equivalent of creationism not seperate creator from creation? Since Paganism typically ascribes to the immanence of the divine as opposed to putting a wall between the divine and the material world? Just wondering because that's how I see it. Creator isn't seperate from creation; the whole thing runs and sustains itself in repeating cycles.

Still, I think we run into causation problems again.

Awesome looking avatar by the way  

[Starlock]

Nihilistic Seraph

Still, I think we run into causation problems again.

Awesome looking avatar by the way

Perhaps. I sometimes look at it this way. Say our awareness is restrained to the space inside a bubble. If the real creative force originated from outside that bubble, it is rather pointless to try to identify it because it lies completely outside our comprehension. I stopped worrying too much about creation a while ago.

On the avatar... I considered entering it into the arena, but I figured it wouldn't win anyway and I didn't want to shell out a thousand gold when I'm saving up to buy the last donation item I didn't get this time around. xd  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

Eh, I can't accept that, I think we're intellectually capable of quite a lot.  

[Starlock]

Nihilistic Seraph

Eh, I can't accept that, I think we're intellectually capable of quite a lot.

Of course we are; being very capable doesn't mean you don't have limits though. Unless you believe we can (or already do) know everything that there ever is to know, what I said does remain a possibility. We do know for a fact that our senses are limited and what we can see/perceive is likewise limited because of that (when we compare to other animals and when we make machines to detect things ordinarily invisible to us). Some of our limits we'll never know since it's so far beyond us.  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

Oh for sure, but to have that view when it comes to spirituality and religion, things get a little strange. I think it was Clifford that argued that you should have adequate proof for anything you believe, because your beliefs are what affect your actions, and your actions others, so what right do you have to believe something that affects others when it could very easily be false.

However, I'm aware that the argument goes both ways, so I leave a response to you 3nodding  

[Starlock]

Nihilistic Seraph

Oh for sure, but to have that view when it comes to spirituality and religion, things get a little strange. I think it was Clifford that argued that you should have adequate proof for anything you believe, because your beliefs are what affect your actions, and your actions others, so what right do you have to believe something that affects others when it could very easily be false.

However, I'm aware that the argument goes both ways, so I leave a response to you 3nodding

What constitutes adequate proof? Until relatively recently, adequate proof wasn't anywhere near the standards of proof we tend to require now (ie, scientific). We seemed to survive okay as a species without tougher standards of proof (after all, I was born and you were born!).

Beliefs definately influence actions. Perhaps moreso, they influence how you see and perceive the world, reality, itself. That's a damned powerful thing. That is sometimes used as one of the founding principles of working magic. The question of rights is more complicated. Morality is often rather complicated. sweatdrop Not sure I want to touch that at the moment.  

[safkef]

My whole belief system is based on energy. It's something that can be proven. I can see it, affect it, and have it effect me so I know it exists (another reason a lot of people reject christianity is because of the "just believe" theory. See My Anonymous Donor on Blogger for my whole explanation). Moving on. When you focus enough energy on something, you effect change in it, regardless of how minute, it is still change. (definition of magic*k*: using your energy to effect change in the world around you) "Mother Nature" is something I see as a profound energy source. I don't see a woman sitting on a throne of ivy anymore then I see a god sitting on a throne of gold. Humans focus a lot of energy, most of it negative in the form of pollution and littering, on mother nature and that strengthens the energy source. The energy is not necessarily a concious thing but I believe that it has an equilibrium to maintain. Since humans are basically a plague of locusts on this planet which we've proven by our actions, the energy we consider mother nature has to balance it out by doing what it needs to; to eliminate the problem.

But hey, W says global warming doesn't exist so we're okay right? LOL  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

Starlock

Nihilistic Seraph

Oh for sure, but to have that view when it comes to spirituality and religion, things get a little strange. I think it was Clifford that argued that you should have adequate proof for anything you believe, because your beliefs are what affect your actions, and your actions others, so what right do you have to believe something that affects others when it could very easily be false.

However, I'm aware that the argument goes both ways, so I leave a response to you 3nodding

What constitutes adequate proof? Until relatively recently, adequate proof wasn't anywhere near the standards of proof we tend to require now (ie, scientific). We seemed to survive okay as a species without tougher standards of proof (after all, I was born and you were born!).

Beliefs definately influence actions. Perhaps moreso, they influence how you see and perceive the world, reality, itself. That's a damned powerful thing. That is sometimes used as one of the founding principles of working magic. The question of rights is more complicated. Morality is often rather complicated. sweatdrop Not sure I want to touch that at the moment.

Epistemic JTB proof? Let's ignore the skeptic's argument for the moment...

Do you agree that's there is a morality of belief though?  

[Starlock]

Nihilistic Seraph

Do you agree that's there is a morality of belief though?

I'm familiar with the argument and to me it makes a lot of sense, but I'm not sure that makes it correct in a universal sense. I know a bit too much in psychology and social psych to not see how a person's beliefs can have much wider consequences than most people understand. Question is, which right or obligation is greater:

The right to freedom of thought and to believe what one wishes?
The obligation to 'the truth' for the sake of morality?

Of course that introduces the problem of what 'the truth' precisely IS. sweatdrop  

[safkef]

Starlock

The right to freedom of thought and to believe what one wishes?
The obligation to 'the truth' for the sake of morality?

Of course that introduces the problem of what 'the truth' precisely IS. sweatdrop

I don't think we have an obligation to the truth for the sake of morality precisely because truth is a fluid, ever changing, evolving organism that nobody can agree on.

I guarantee that there are members of this guild who hold certain truths to be self evident that i would scoff at and vice versa.

My morality is definitely different from another persons and the next persons is going to be far different from mine.

If you were to ask a sociopath what their truth was, you would be appalled and yet, for them (although my opinion says they are whacked) that is their truth and their morality. So, to me, the only obligation is the right to believe in what one wishes and be able to have freedom of thought.

Of course, I also don't think that freedom of thought transforms automatically into freedom of deed. Just because I can think something, doesn't mean I have a moral obligation to do it. In fact, some of the things I think, I believe I have a moral obligation to not do.

So, I have expounded for the evening LOL  

[Starlock]

Do you think that while we might not have a moral obligation to 'the' truth, Safkef, that we might have an obligation to that which we personally consider truth?  

[safkef]

Starlock

Do you think that while we might not have a moral obligation to 'the' truth, Safkef, that we might have an obligation to that which we personally consider truth?

I've started and restarted this about 10 times now LOL I don't know about moral obligation to truth but I do believe that part of "harm none" (regardless of what form you believe in I think most of us can agree that our basic philosophy involves doing no harm to people) is to to be honest in what we say and do. I still stand by the fact that truth is fluid depending on who you are talking to. I'm not sure that I want somebody like Charles Manson feeling a moral obligation to his truth. Does what I'm trying to say make sense? It really goes right back to freedom of thought vs freedom of deed. Which brings you to the whole problem of where you draw that line morally or legally. Do you break laws enacted by a government you don't agree with because they are oppressive and ridiculous, knowing that the law has nothing to do with morality but just control? Or, does breaking a law cross a moral line?

PS: I so love discussions like these! Thank you!