Isn't religion, educational things (including philosophy) put in practical use considering the nature of living on this planet? Sure, God is significant in the bible, but the amount of words alongside God outnumber God. God can be considered a creative tool set to enforce the latter, that is, the way to live. Isn't it just an attempt at co-ordinated living given all what we know?

How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?. — Jack Cummins

I imagine this is the point of your post - is there another? But these seem but different names for the same thing.

I am sure that the issue of hows and whys of religious thinking have been explored on so many threads. One major aspect may the psychology of religion, and why do people seek to attribute so much to gods or God?

Of course, it could be turned around, as into the question of whether psychological aspects are a question of higher metaphysics? I see it as very complex, but I am probably someone who overthinks. This relates back to your query about 'names' for the same thing', because it may be a matter of language and framing in human explanations.

The concept of 'God' or ''gods' is interesting. It is worth considering to what extent it represents 'a higher reality' as such, or a tool in human understanding? This may be an issue which spans psychology and anthropology, as well as philosophy. It may go back to core basics of metaphysics, and how these are constructed by human beings.

The question, or issue, may also be about what is an explanation, which may be answered so differently. It could come down to a 'supernatural deity', a material cause or some kind of psychological intermediate. Historical origins may be important but it may also be about origins in terms of causes, or how these are understood, involving both logical explanations and metaphors or symbolic dimensions of thinking.

Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth? — Jack Cummins

For Joseph Campbell, myth was somewhat like the educational operating code for integrating folks into their culture. He had used the metaphor of a womb often to refer to cultural providence/support structures. The stereotypes we value, the stories we tell about those types, help to guide the development of persons to be functional members of society. I think Campbell conceived of the informational global age as producing a kind of wasteland of shattered or diminished cultures which poses new adaptive challenges to individuals trying to make their way in world.

Ideology is likely a good stand in for the word myth. Do we need ideologies to live healthy lives? Which ones ought we accept and embrace?

The issues of ideologies in relation to myth is a good question. That is especially in relation to 'a kind of wasteland of shattered of shattered or diminished cultures'. It involves the idea of meaning, hope but may be a little different from worldviews in which an entirely different stance was taken. Some of these were utopian and some built upon differing metaphysics entirely, such as resurrection of the dead.

I am of the view that inner as opposed to outer, objective aspects of 'reality' are important here in the tradition of human understanding. Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth? As far as I see it is a topic involving dialogue between ancient philosophy, as well as anthropological thinking and research. How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy? — Jack Cummins

They're good questions, but also very big questions. There is a description you might sometimes encounter, 'scientia sacra', meaning the sacred science. It is not a popular term, but still has currency amongst the advocates of the perennial philosophy, such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr and others. This is the theme that there are universal, undelying tenets of wisdom which are made manifest in the individual cultural forms throughout history. In the pre-modern world, there was a perceived unity between the human being as 'microcosm' and the universe, Cosmos ('as above, so below', although the traditionalist vision has been undermined by science in some important respects.)

But it's a vast field of study, which can be approached through a number of perspectives. Karen Armstrong is a good source on that. Huston Smith might be another to consider. Joseph Campbell, as mentioned already. James Hillman another. There's also the more up-to-date and contemporary approaches, like Brian Swimme's evolutionary cosmology. Gary Lachmann's books might be of interest also.

Apologies if the following rambles too far off-topic ...

An excerpt of a post from a (2022) thread The Philosopher will not find God

Recognizing that "God" does not explain anything (re: mythos) is what motivated the Presocratic proto-scientists (physiologoi) in Ionia & Elea to speculate on rational explanations (logos) of nature (phusis) and our minds (nous). — 180 Proof

In other words, it seems g/G is just a primitive – atavistic – personification of (an) unknowable-inexplicable power(s), likely beginning as animism (i.e. the world is enchanted aka "magical thinking"). Later Mythos had been invented to ethno-narratively memorialize such personified – anthropomorphized – power(s) by and around which (the) cultus formed and then, iirc, medieval scholars had called "religion" (from religare). For two and half millennia the Western philosophical tradition has striven to exorcize, or domesticate (deflate), ineliminable Mythos (i.e. narrative g/G-of-the-gaps pathos) by making explicit – reflectively meditating on – (its) Logos. :fire:

(2020) An excerpt of a post from your thread What is the purpose of dreaming and what do dreams tell us?

Logos confronting, or reflecting on, mythos (but within the hermeneutical context of mythos) was once the grounds for doing philosophy and, I think, still is; otherwise, Jack, why bother? — 180 Proof

Also, Jack, from your (2021) thread To What Extent Does Philosophy Replace Religion For Explanations and Meaning?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/614799

It's long past time to consider (also) the deadly toxicity of religion. If we consider g/Gs to have evolved from 180 Proof's account above as explanatory of the phenomena of the world, to be just regulative ideas, those which lead us or advise to be whatever might be our best selves, then we have arrived at an account which on the whole is beneficial to all, notwithstanding that "some of us cherish some queer crotchets no ways touching the grand belief.”

And these thems what don't believe - or rather they (and I one) who simply hold onto what seem good ideas. On the other hand are those that truly believe. Belief here understood as the acceptance of propositions as true that even by definition cannot be known to be true. And here I will only note that by these and in the name of all they hold holy and true have been committed most of the murders on this planet in the entire history of people on this planet.

While they're not murdering, they're trying to enact and impose acceptance of their beliefs as true, as facts. To my way of thinking, humanity is a dangerous psychopath of a child for so long as it maintains these beliefs both as facts and the practices they lead to. And its not too farfetched to imagine it leading to war. Not too farfetched because it already has many times across centuries and even now.

He queries the relationship between religion and philosophy. I am extremely interested in this relationship and whether religion was central in this, or a later development. — Jack Cummins

I don't know enough to speak about the historical relationship between religion and philosophy, but from my modern perspective, they fill very similar roles. Whether or not God exists is a matter of fact - yes or no - but religions are not just about God or gods. They also have associated metaphysics that guide people's understanding of the universe just as the kinds of philosophies we discuss here do. That being said, I wonder if religions have more of a focus on looking inward rather than outward. I don't know enough about comparative religion or comparative philosophy to say whether that's true.

[Religions] also have associated metaphysics that guide people's understanding of the universe ... — T Clark

I think rational-pragmatic philosophies aspire to much more than 'superstitiously living according to the folk stories of miracles and magic' canonized by religions (& cults).

@Jack Cummins

Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth?.As far as I see it is a topic involving dialogue between ancient philosophy, as well as anthropological thinking and research. — Jack Cummins

When you say "the concept of myth", does it mean something like Platonic world of idea, which is separated from the material world, and out of reach? Or would it mean some sort of hidden principles and entities within the religious sects and organisations with the artificial makeup for seclusion from the general public?

I will explore Seyedd Hossain because I haven't come across him. It does seem that we have read some of the same authors, Huston Smith, Gary Lachman, James Hillman and James Hillman. I don't think that James Hillman is that well known as you are the first person I have come across who has and I find him to be a very good writer. I also find Edward Edinger's , 'Ego and Archetype very helpful, as well as the writings of Mircea Eliade.

It is a very large topic, as you say. I first became interested in when my school English teacher encouraged reading on the topic. A few years ago I did a term long course on mythology as well as an evening class on anthropology. I would like to study more anthropology and have done some reading of Levi Strauss, as well as Mary Douglas's 'Purity and Danger'. The culture assumptions of the sacred and taboo are important in thinking of ideas about good and evil.

Yes, the contrast between logos and mythos is an area discussed in previous threads. The problem which I see is if people treat mythos as though it were logos, unable to differentiate this at all. Many conventionally religious people are inclined to do this and it took me some time to be able to do so.

However, it is difficult though, not just about the existence of God but areas such as the ideas like the fall of the angels and humanity. I was definitely brought up to believe in this and even now see it as standing for something possibly 'real' because there is a lot that is unknown about ancient history. At one stage, I read writers like Graham Hancock and some of this may be mythic but the idea of the Nephilim race is one which I find intriguing. I have come across the idea that in thinking of evolution this was a process in which humans slept with apes.

Some of the ideas are likely to be symbolic but the correspondences between the planets and early gods is important in thinking of the ancient worldviews. Sometimes, people assume that ancient people were 'primitive' but cultures like Egypt and Rome were extremely advanced.

I enjoy mythic fiction, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Bernard Cornwell. Being half Irish by descent, I am particularly interested in Celtic and British legends, including those in the Magbinon, Arthur and those surrounding Glastonbury. Tolkien also presents a fascinating journey into the mythic imagination.

It is definitely true that a lot of religious beliefs have been a factor of toxicity, especially in the development of war. But, this may something about the human nature and mass psychology as much as the ideas of the leaders. If the teachings of Christ or the Buddha had been followed fully, it should have led to less war as opposed to creating it. In particular, the culture of Christendom is so opposed to the Biblical teachings themselves, especially in the development of material wealth as opposed to the Gospel teachings.

As it is, humanity is made up of so many diverging traditions and there is so much conflict and war. It is not clear that mere loss of belief in spiritual reality will lead to a more peaceful one necessarily. If only it was that simple and the problem may be fundamentalism in general. There is religious fundamentalism and even atheistic fundamentalism. A lot is about concrete, dogmatic thinking.

If people are more able to understand the symbolic dimension it can be a source of wisdom, and does not have to come down to belief in God. Spirituality is not dependent on gods or God, but about self-awareness and wisdom within. The inner psyche may be a starting point for transformation of consciousness, which may lead to greater understanding of others ' needs and of all living beings.

The idea of 'God' or 'divinity' encompasses the issue of inner and outer 'reality', subjectivity and objectivity. — Jack Cummins

I wonder about that. As i understand the most direct notions of what we might call divinity, the early people who placed a superhuman figure at the center of their origin myths did not differentiate realities - human psyche, the physical environment, their group identity and their system of ethics was all of a piece. Science is the practical aspect of living: how to get what you need with maximal efficiency and minimal risk. this requires learning how physics work and involves making tools - technology. Philosophy/religion is the people's relationship to the world and one another. this requires formulating foundational principles - usually attributed to the creator-deity, whether that figure intervenes is daily life or not. On this are based the rules of behaviour - law, in our present, more formal systems.
horizontally organized, egalitarian and homogeneous societies didn't need a the active participation of a god or gods - they had nature spirits and ancestors to make mischief or help them out of scrapes, or just to account for remarkable situations.

That one big capitalized god is a latecomer to belief-systems, introduced with the vertical organization of society with a supreme all-powerful ruler, as in nation-states. Even so, the pantheon model persisted well into the age of civilized empires, like egypt and rome. The supposedly single Catholic god even got divided in three parts and was provided with an enormous civil service of saints and angels. it seems even very large nations that wish to present a monolithic source of control can't do with just one powerful being to run the whole shebang.

I enjoy mythic fiction, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Bernard Cornwell. Being half Irish by descent, I am particularly interested in Celtic and British legends, including those in the Magbinon, Arthur and those surrounding Glastonbury. Tolkien also presents a fascinating journey into the mythic imagination. — Jack Cummins

:nerd: :100: :sparkle:

I think rational-pragmatic philosophies aspire to much more than 'superstitiously living according to the folk stories of miracles and magic' canonized by religions (& cults). — 180 Proof

I'm shocked! Shocked! to find you have a different attitude about this than I do. I've been trying to get myself to start a new discussion about this. I keep getting half way through and then losing traction.

:smirk:

I think observers usually put this question the wrong way around. Philosophies and belief systems don't influence social organization. It's how people live - social organization, particularly the allocation of power and resources - that determines their culture's main philosophy - belief system, world-view and the kind of supernatural entities its mythology invents. If there is an 'inner' component to this overall reality, each individual creates his or her own model of their world, his or her own narrative of events, relationships, expectations and obligations. of course, the raw constituents of each subjective reality are absorbed from their prevailing culture and shaped by their own experience.

I do agree that religious perspectives are more inclined to looking within. Putting it together with life in the outer world is where it gets messy. Ultimately, the two should work together, but they frequently become separated so much and become so hollow.

Jesus recognised this when he criticised the superficial hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Gnostics, who looked at inner or symbolic interpretations of the life of Jesus were outlawed as heretics. Their accounts are so different, including suggestions of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' partner. This is so different from the conventional ideas about sexuality within Christianity, which were based on the ideas of the Paul.

Also, in many ways spiritual ideas underlying many religions involved shared views of wisdom, even though there have been so many rifts between the different religions and traditions within these religions.

It's long past time to consider (also) the deadly toxicity of religion... And here I will only note that by these and in the name of all they hold holy and true have been committed most of the murders on this planet in the entire history of people on this planet. — tim wood

I think this is clearly not true. It's the party line spouted by anti-religious bigots without providing more than anecdotal evidence. I think of all the wars and genocides started by non-religious actors - the Mongol invasions; Germany in World War 2; Communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia just to start. Sure there were plenty of wars where religion had a major role, but in those cases, as far as I can see, religion is just along for the ride. The big wars and genocides are started by people who want power, and then more power and then more. What's my evidence for this? Well, it's mostly anecdotal just like yours, but I don't have to provide evidence. You're the one who made a claim, so you have to provide justification for your beliefs.

I do agree that religious perspectives are more inclined to looking within. Putting it together with life in the outer world is where it gets messy. Ultimately, the two should work together, but they frequently become separated so much and become so hollow. — Jack Cummins

I think of this from the perspective of Taoist philosophy as expressed in the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. In my experience, Taoism is an inward-looking philosophy - it's all about self-awareness. At the same time, following Lao Tzu's principles leads to action in the real world. You have to go inward before you can go outward. I think that religions in general have this same sort of inward focus. That's definitely a "seems to me" claim given my lack of any deep experience with religion.

How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?. — Jack Cummins

To understand the development, one has to understand the intuitive rationality of animism, and the counterintuitive nature of the modern, dead world. One has to disabuse oneself of modernity.

Any sailor or fisherman can tell you that the sea is sometimes calm, and sometimes playful, and sometimes angry. Who could not take being struck by lightening personally? Who is not afraid that their local dormant volcano will one day wake up? Even the rocks grow hair; what kind of fool thinks they only are alive and the world is dead?

from this rational position, try and justify modernity.