Beyond just mentioning pagan gods like Baal or Moloch, and I use the word gods here loosely because anything other than an uncaused cause is not ultimately a god/goddess, the Bible does occasionally make statements that reference unspecified pagan gods. An example is the renowned command to have no other gods before Yahweh one can find in the Ten Commandments. Many readers might completely ignore this, but, when all assumptions are avoided, the language of the Bible here is not necessarily immediately clear on whether it is saying that other gods lesser than Yahweh exist but do not deserve worship or that the others are wholly false gods. What would the ramifications be if it was the former?
Even if the Bible actually did teach that Yahweh is the supreme deity, the uncaused cause, and that pantheons of lesser "deities" exist, neither the creators of the universe nor humans, but beings in between, little would actually change about Christianity theology other than this significant but limited aspect. There would still be an uncaused cause that these superhuman entities cannot rival the power or more metaphysically central nature of, the moral commands of Yahweh would not change, and the nature of the life and death of Jesus would not be affected (short of something like Arianism being true of the Biblical teachings, but this is possible either way, though it is impossible to Biblically confirm or refute the idea that Yahweh created Jesus). The true core of Christianity would scarcely change.
The difference is that Yahweh would be God among "gods," the being responsible for bringing the first contingent beings into existence, either creating or setting in motion the circumstances leading to the creation of these entities with power, perhaps even supernatural power, that greatly exceeds that of humans and yet falls far short of the ability to invent and sustain the cosmos. From the Greco-Roman pantheon to those of ancient Egypt, Scandinavia, or pre-colonization America, the majority of what people call "gods" and "goddesses" in these hierarchies are not credited with bringing the universe into existence, being the sole standard of moral obligation, or having the ability to preside over the entirety of physical creation.
As such, it would still not be Athena or Odin but Yahweh who has precedence over created reality even if the Bible was acknowledging the actual existence of lesser so-called gods (for they would still not be the uncaused cause, which is what a deity truly is) under Yahweh, as opposed to merely acknowledging that some people conceived of and worshipped such beings even if they do not exist. "You shall have no other gods before me" from Exodus 20 would still apply even if pagan pseudo-deities like Zeus, Hera, Frigga, Pinga (of Inuit religion), Ra, and Khonsu, which are, again, not uncaused causes, existed. Since this would remain unchanged, so too would the moral nature of Yahweh, his desire to offer salvation to the willing, and the eventual coming and death of Christ.
At first, the hypothetical possibility of the Bible literally stating that pagan pantheons exist but only as lesser than Yahweh might seem to change so much about Christianity if it is true that the result is unrecognizable, yet in actuality, almost nothing about the genuine heart of Christianity would differ. This is not affirmation that in referencing other gods, the Bible is teaching that they exist, only an affirmation of what would and would not logically follow about Christian theology. More foundationally, the logically necessary existence of the uncaused cause prior to the universe would also remain unchanged regardless of whether Christianity is true even if there were/are superhuman beings similar to the Olympian deities. Something so seemingly extensive in its ramifications really has much more limited ones.
"What would the ramifications be if it was the former?"
ReplyDelete"...superhuman beings similar to the Olympian deities. Something so seemingly extensive in its ramifications really has much more limited ones."
Institutions act as though potential ramifications were otherwise: i.e., significant.
Words vs. deeds. Example:
At a convocation of the Magisterium, the School of Athens was suspended above the entrance.
https://mymodernmet.com/school-of-athens-raphael/
This was a philosophy conference. A painting of philosophers was the obvious, even anodyne, artistic touch.
A detail: The heads of Athena and Apollo were cropped from the print. Cut off.
Questions:
1. Is it likely the crop was accidental?
2. The Magisterium directed us to recognize Mother Mary as the titular deity of conference proceedings. Why Mary?
3. Why do institutions suppress concepts with good "track records"?
You've spent time this week writing on cannibalism (bad) and Lego Batman 3 (good). You aspire to a greater exploration. And yet.
DeleteSorry, I have numerous posts scheduled for release one a day for quite some time into the future, so the articles such as the one about cannibalism were written long ago and just recently were posted. I am just now reviewing comments for the first time in a while.
DeleteIt's hard to tell what your primary point is with such vague wording, but institutions are compromised of people, and most people are non-rationalists, so of course they are going to misunderstand the ramifications of almost anything. The Catholic Church is included. However, though Mary is not a deity within Christian theology, why would it inherently matter if the heads of Athena and Apollo are or are not kept in that version of the artwork? What is the supposed grand significance of focusing on something like this?
Hmm. Writing as a Christian rationalist, you should be more familiar with Church history and psychology, esp. if you're writing on cultural touchstones like the "pagan pantheon".
ReplyDeleteThere's an actual Pantheon in Rome, you know. Basilica of St. Mary and the Martyrs. 7th-century Christians beheaded the gods of the Pantheon and replaced those sculptures with Mary et al. That set precedent. Hence, (1.) and (2.), putting philosophers on notice in the plainest of terms, now as then. That's why Mary was titular god of the philosophy conference. There's no more obvious reason - and you had no idea, unfortunately.
The suppression of Greek and Roman psychology is institutional. That raises question (3.). Do you understand institutional suppression, here and elsewhere? That is, the motives, consequences, historical remedies, etc.? Or do you simply accept it throughout Christendom, without question?
I think you owe us a remedial post on revived gods of the Renaissance, esp. the psychological significance of their reintroduction into Christian life.
Consistent rationalists realize that there is literally no historical event that can be proven from documentation, as opposed to just invalidly assumed, and thus they care very little about the majority of the historical record except out of subjective interest. Only fools believe that they can actually know with absolute certainty what happened throughout history or that history is somehow pivotal to understanding the only things that can be known with absolute certainty--things like the nature of reason, that one is conscious, that there is some sort of uncaused cause, and so on. The history of the Catholic Church is utterly irrelevant to whether certain ideas are taught in the Bible or if those ideas are true (or probably true), and Christianity itself is philosophically secondary to the necessary truths of reason at best anyway. Why or whether 7th century Christians decapitated statues of pagan entities does not have anything to do with logical proofs of foundational philosophical truths or with the contents of the Bible itself (as opposed to how the church has acted across history). You seem to have no idea what the fuck rationalism is, and you are so vague even in your reply that you legitimately seem unaware of how I was writing in this blog post about what would and would not logically follow if there was a pagan-like pantheon in existence. The focus is on logical necessities and foundational metaphysics, not historical events or how they psychologically influence people stupid enough to base their epistemological and metaphysical beliefs on history.
Delete"I was writing in this blog post about what would and would not logically follow if there was a pagan-like pantheon in existence."
ReplyDeleteYet the Renaissance shows us by lived example, and you're incurious. Not even one post?
"Re-birth" of what, Cooper? And why do Christian philosophers struggle with that heritage, even today?
You might work it into your bikini series.
Historical trends and artistic depictions do not in any way reveal what logically follows from a given concept; only reason can! Perhaps they might prompt someone to think about a given logical truth or philosophical issue, but that in no way has to do with what I was writing about. This post is about how beings like Athena are not even uncaused causes according to the pagan ideologies that feature them, meaning they are not deities despite what people call them. It does not matter what people said, wrote, felt, or portrayed in the Renaissance, as everything I am addressing here is true and knowable independent of that. Your relentless non sequiturs and red herrings don't even connect with what I'm talking about.
DeleteNo, Aristotle's concept of an uncaused cause didn't render e.g. Athena less of a deity than before. There are, after all, different psychological roles, and a prime mover doesn't perform them all. Religious institutions must celebrate "a little Athena" for inspirations, because that's the role. You wouldn't really substitute "a little Mary" or "a little prime mover", now would you? That's not logical, or psychologically congruent.
DeleteThe Renaissance shows us much in this respect; i.e., religious congruence and integration. The good results proved the need for such psychological re-birth. Today we instinctively feel the draw, the charm, of that milieu. Tautology is sterile, in comparison. Maybe you can find a bikini simile.
First of all, no one needs to hear about Aristotle to recognize the logical necessity of an uncaused cause, as self-creation of the cosmos, the universe having always existed, an infinite causal chain, and the universe coming into existence uncaused are all logically impossible (and these truths are grounded in reason alone, which is universally accessible and yet almost universally ignored). Second, if a being is not an uncaused cause, it is not a deity. It's not as if there is any evidence that pagan pantheons exist anyway, and though there is evidence, falling short of proof, that the Biblical Yahweh is the uncaused cause, the existence of an uncaused cause is objectively verifiable through logical necessity.
DeleteReality is not about what makes someone feel inspired, and these psychological "roles" you are emotionalistically fixated on have nothing to do with revealing anything beyond desires and perceptions. Feeling inspired or hopeful or intrigued by something does not make it true or demonstrable. It is the intrinsic veracity of logic, the absolute certainty it grounds, and the all-encompassing nature of the laws of logic that make them the thing of true depth rather than the idiocy of emotionalism. Bikinis have no direct connection to what we are talking about, so it is amusing that you keep bringing them up.