As per usual, we had a discussion that meandered wherever it damn well pleased. It began with Michael making reference to the movie night movie, "Dogma," and a scene where Ben Affleck's fallen angel character rejects god because of his behavior, in full knowledge of his existence. At least one of the iterations of Satanism promotes this idea: rejection of god isn't contingent upon his existence, practitioners of that philosophy reject the idea of being ruled by this, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, "god character." (This is, in part, my after the fact editorializing.)
This led to Derek bringing up Marcus Aurelius' (potentially apocryphal):
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
There's an absolute world of bun-fighting associated with this quote... if you have time, the Google rabbit hole is very, very deep.
James M. then segued us into a discussion of whether or not there would be good without bad, or if a gray area would if there could be joy without suffering. Ronnie pointed out that it wouldn't be terribly difficult to conceive of a world that was created better than the one we live in. (No matter what Leibniz said.) Steven pointed out that there are different kinds of suffering. E.g. - striving and working toward goals and having your food stolen and your children killed by a dictator.
From here we sort of got into the nature of god and his *ahem* "works."
Joey pointed out that good gods and bad gods are easier to understand and therefore believe in. Antonio made the point that, well, for a god so powerful, his actions are pretty mundane. A being that can create the universe is pretty silly when he shows up in toast (or, and I chuckle butt cannot help myself). James commented that that is a reflection of human hubris, and Ronnie brought us back to the God of the Gaps. Joey filled this in by pointing out that we use god for explanations of what we don't understand. People project themselves onto whatever god they believe in. I added that the Jews of the old testament were actually polytheistic, but believed that YHWH was just better. There's a scene where the King of Moab burns his own kid as a sacrifice, and it works so that he can beat the Israelites. Additionally, I brought up the "scapegoat" ritual of putting the sins of the early Israelite community out into the wilderness "for Azazel." I'm now reading that Azazel might be the word for scapegoat? Dunno - let me know if you know!
Then, we got into Lord of the Rings as a potential religion and how The Silmarillion fits the specs for religious texts - unreadable and fake.
We talked about God on Trial.
There was some back and forth for a while about faith, science, and money. For instance, on larger, more abstract things, we cannot directly observe our effect on, say, climate change. And, while scientists can be bought, it is scientific research that exposes any mistakes or transgressions on the part of individual scientists. However, there were some differing opinions on human health. This went from the anti-vax movement to GMOs to regulation of sterilization in hospitals.
Then, eventually we rounded back to politics, the electoral college, gerrymandering, and reasonable sizes for congressional districts. There were a lot more comments made, arguments had, and jokes. Forgive me, or let me know if I've omitted something.
Right at the end of the meeting, Michael was talking about a book concerned with honor culture and violence. I think this was it, but let me know if I'm wrong.
Then, we got into Lord of the Rings as a potential religion and how The Silmarillion fits the specs for religious texts - unreadable and fake.
We talked about God on Trial.
There was some back and forth for a while about faith, science, and money. For instance, on larger, more abstract things, we cannot directly observe our effect on, say, climate change. And, while scientists can be bought, it is scientific research that exposes any mistakes or transgressions on the part of individual scientists. However, there were some differing opinions on human health. This went from the anti-vax movement to GMOs to regulation of sterilization in hospitals.
Then, eventually we rounded back to politics, the electoral college, gerrymandering, and reasonable sizes for congressional districts. There were a lot more comments made, arguments had, and jokes. Forgive me, or let me know if I've omitted something.
Right at the end of the meeting, Michael was talking about a book concerned with honor culture and violence. I think this was it, but let me know if I'm wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment