John Carter of Mars: What Would Religious Views Look like on other planets if you had to guess?

[Gxg (G²)]

I think that Jane's explanation is fairly reasonable. If other species in the universe exist and are religious, their religious probably reflects their experience; everything from their geography to physiology, language, weather, culture etc. probably plays a part in the formation of their religions. If these species are more advanced, I'm not wholly sure if that would make them more or less religious. I'd say its probably about the same unless they have some major cognitive advantage over humanity which enlightens them to a higher truth.

Though I don't generally image the rest of the universe's species to be of massively greater intelligence than us. More than likely they're relatively close to us if their are sapient/sentient at all. Their may be some more or less advanced than others but I suspect a lot of them and fumbling around in the dark of space much like we are trying to, with no FTL technology or communications to discover each other. I think of it as a lot of isolated island tribes existing in parallel but not intersecting.

The dynamic of seeing it from the perspective of isolated land tribes is a very good view, IMHO....IT brings home the point that things can exist and yet be similar without ever interacting. My own mindset is that we've already encountered other life-forms multiple times when it comes to creatures differing from what we're used to in our own dimension, as it concerns the reality of the supernatural.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'd say most extraterrestrial religions would be based on the sense of existence/consciousness they are familiar with: i.e. a race resembling state-building insects would imagine their deities to think and act like their queens, and be motivated by the same factors as well. (Just look at how closely human gods resemble the human potentates of the people who first imagined them - or even how closely they overlap with the general psychological structure of the "alpha male" in other species of ape.)

Since such a large part of religion is based on a desire to explain the natural world in a pre-scientific world with limited means of obtaining knowledge, I could also imagine that extremely advanced civilizations no longer practice the kind of religion our own species has exhibited throughout most of recorded history - although I'd wager that some form of spirituality and symbolism is part of the general structure of sapience.

It'd possibly be something you'd see in either Babylon-5 or Stargate....

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It wouldn't really matter when it comes to atheists since the reality is that spiritual isn't just something anyone can escape from when it comes to things having meaning beyond the natural.

We still see in existence on our world Spiritual Atheists as they are people who do not believe in a literal "God" (thus the term "Atheist"), but still consider themselves to be (often deeply) "Spiritual" people.

• BG 175: The Buddhist Atheist - Buddhist Geeks

We're already seeing the rise of others having faith in what science offers when it comes to meaning for our lives - even though they may not be religious. There was an excellent review on the issue in light of the series by Neil deGrasse Tyson - as seen in Cosmos, Episode One: A Religious Approach to Science and an Unscientific Approach to History | Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith from Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith. As it is, not all atheist have ever been of the mindset that being atheist somehow means not being spiritual and many who give EXTREME value to the universe have noted where atheism is highly spiritual (As discussed before here ). We have atheists already reflecting religious systems that do not believe in gods/goddesses or a Deity (Buddhism, Taoism, Pantheism, Unitarian Universalism, etc.) -with it being the case that Richard Dawkins described Pantheism as "sexed up" atheism since Pantheists use the word God to describe nature and the universe in non-supernatural terms (more shared in http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm ) and Richard Dawkins writes "Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings" - and secular humanism, which is overwhelmingly atheistic in practice, is deemed a religion. ...

As a basic example on the spirituality inherent in differing forms of atheism, Pantheism believes that the universe and nature are worthy of the deepest religious reverence - that understanding them, appreciating their beauty, and preserving nature, should be the central focus of our lives. Nearly everyone feels religious feelings when looking at nature or the night sky - and most people explain those feelings in terms of the religion they were taught as children....and pantheism believes that those feelings are older and more basic than any traditional religion, for it sees that they are a natural part of our existence as natural material beings, a recognition of our participation and belonging as members of nature and the universe.

For more, one can go to Pantheism as "Sexed-up Atheism" | World Pantheism - as it concerns Pantheistic Atheism..

Also, others such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson has also spoken on the matter when he noted rather directly "I wanted to become an astrophysicist not because I chose it … in a way the universe chose me. [...] I was called by the universe. I had no choice in the matter.":

The stances of atheists - who place mankind/whatever he feels to have meaning at the center of determining value and morality - is a reflection of pantheism.

​

As it concerns those who are atheists and spirituality, the reality of being unable to escape a spiritual background can again be seen in the realm of the metaphysical.

As an example, Two biologists can come from differing backgrounds----one a Deist and the other an Agnostic--and yet they can have common ground in their desire to understand how the botanical world can operate. They can examine the same kinds of plants and come to the same conclusions when rationally studying the makeup of the plant, how it was designed, how long it lives and how important it is to the environment. Both can walk away from their study on how an organism operates naturally and not necessarily have to have a religious view dictate how they study or what they see organically developing. However, when it comes to the reasons behind why the plant exists and what meaning/purpose it has life, in that area is where the subject of spirituality occurs alongside the realm of the supernatural. For seeing the way something operates does not mean one understands the artistic beauty in it or the back-drop of what significance that plant has in the meaning of life. Essentially, what I'm trying to convey is the entire issue of how there is only explaining the material universe from some particular human perspective, with its own embedded metaphysics.....that if consistent, methodological naturalism leads to a metaphysical (spiritual) level.

There can be no escaping that you in the lab (or in nature) always begin your investigation with a whole conceptual system...and this connects to what can be found in the Kantian concept of the transcendental. That is, there are certain things which are preconditions for our being able to know, or do any empirical investigation at all, but which are themselves not capable of being the objects of our knowledge, or empirically verified. For the entire structure of our thought, which occurs in language, is transcendental.

Methodological naturalism starts with an entire bucket bag of concepts, such as "causation", the "natural", the "observable", and so forth, all of which are in fact metaphysical concepts, and have metaphysics built into them. As soon as one looks at something and says "that is an X", he or she has brought their conceptual system into play...and the investigation is no longer purely empirical. For the individual is filtering the world through an already existing conceptual system. This was the case even with Newton, who did not make any of his laws on gravity without first having a filter that was well-established in Theism. Without a metaphysical framework, we would not be able to entertain notions of what is possible and what is not. For the notion of possibility is fundamentally metaphysical. ...and that is spiritual. We can, of course, understand other people's views, but there is always a degree of misunderstanding involved, because it will be our understanding of their views, framed without our conceptual framework, and this will involve some distortion. Science, even methodological naturalism, is teleological to an extent. For when it comes to asking what purpose or specific character does the universe have, it has been shown how it is knowable, constant, intelligible, predictable, stable, etc. These are all presuppositions of science as well as methodological naturalism. Atheists are often associated with methodological naturalism - but with Methodological Naturalism, what it seems others often forget is that the problem with saying things like the natural is what is observable is that what is observable is purely theory-dependent. ...conceptual in nature.

Additionally, there are scientists who study paranormal phenomenon (i.e. angels, ghosts, etc) and choose not to assume that what they are studying is not so much supernatural as much as it is a part of nature that is currently unknown. They assume that how they are generally conceptualized doesn't matter since in their minds, if they exist, and they impact the material universe (whether they are part of it or not), they can be studied using science at least to that extent. However, "existence" is a concept, and "material universe" is a concept, and what these mean have to be panned out relative to an overall metaphysical system. For concepts are holistic, existing in relation to an entire network of meaning.

And as it concerns the spiritual, other atheists are aware of how even religious motivations have often played a key role in development of theory/science. In example, Niels Bohr, who layed some of the foundations for quantum physics, was influenced by various mystical ideas and the Chinese yin/yang doctrine (which formed the real basis of his doctrine of complementarity). Additionally, Karl Jung, who developed universally acknowledged psychological categories of introvert and extravert, amongst many other things, was very much basing his work on esotericism. As one who is a Human Services professional/in the field, Jung is very central for the theories/science utilized in dealing with human interactions....and it was never seen as not being "science." With both Jung and Bohr, these scientists felt it necessary to reformulate their doctrines in ways that were passably naturalistic. But their basic explanatory categories were religious, and then were then transformed into naturalistic ones. In both cases, that reflected an underlying belief in the religious metaphysics. Furthermore, even if the original ideas were transformed into naturalistic ones, there is still a teleological connection between them, which in fact raises doubts about whether it is right to interpret them as truly naturalistic anyway. Granted, methodological naturalism does not exclude one being merely inspired in a loose sense by ideas of a religious nature....but in the cases cited, it seems to go beyond a level of "loose." For Bohr believed in complementarity because of his religious metaphysical views, just as Jung did

Discussions on subjects such as naturalism/atheism do the exact same things as those in theism when it comes to spiritual questions defining life.

Questions like:

• "What is 'life'?

• "What is the origin of life?"

• "How did I get here?"

• "Why am I here?"

• "What does the future hold for the inhabitants of our world?

"
For all of the questions brought up, they are central behind the way we live our lives...especially as it concerns the reasons behind why we do science to begin with...for even if trying to be objective on finding out one aspect of science, one cannot escape having to deal with the natural consequence of what a scientific fact entails. Its being seen all the time in the consequences discoveries of science have created. When studying the science of physics in an area such as creating safer automobiles, one has to understand that they reason for making something safer/better understanding physics is because they value life. But if they don't even understand the basis behind why life is to be valued, what's the point? Why be concerned with using science for the betterment of mankind?

Dawkins is once again wrong on matters of religion. Pantheism deifies the universe, it isn't just calling Nature god. He is removing the religious element from a clearly religious worldview. In fact, all those 'spiritual' approaches, be it life forces or consciousness or whatever people call them, are in fact religious variants with well established terms in comparative mythology and history.
Its just that today Religion has got a bad name in certain circles where people prefer to identify themselves by some form of atheistic moniker.
The fact is that spirituality of any form requires some form of religious framework, period.
These are quibbles over terminology, these people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. A true Atheist would deny spirituality entirely, deny answers to questions like 'why am I here?' are possible. They could still ask how and where are we going, for this does not require spirituality. Such Atheists exist, I know for I moved in Atheist circles for many years.
Pantheistic Atheists and Spiritual Atheists etc. are Oxymoronic statements in my opinion.

 

[MehGuy]

I would suspect that their sense of spirituality would correspond with their psychology/biology/environment. With the latter being the biggest indicator of any similarity between us and them.

Concepts such as love, and suffering reverberate strongly within our own religious traditions, but an intelligent alien species may have evolved neither and as a consequence such ideas would be entirely absent from their religious views.

I also suspect that there is intelligent life out there who lack any notion of "emotion" and thus probably never had a drive for spirituality, and thus a largely atheistic history.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A true Atheist would deny spirituality entirely, deny answers to questions like 'why am I here?' are possible.

Please don't speak for atheists, and especially not the nonsense concept of "true Atheists". I don't care that you were once an atheist. There is a great deal of diversity possible to atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Please don't speak for atheists, and especially not the nonsense concept of "true Atheists". I don't care that you were once an atheist. There is a great deal of diversity possible to atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am not speaking for Atheists, but for linguistics and comparative mythology. Those terms do not fall within the defintion of Atheism according to these fields. Anyone can coin any term they want, but that does not make it the true academic definition thereof. If words are cheapened to non-meaning as clearly is occuring here with the term atheism, then it means nothing and adds no understanding to a discussion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am not speaking for Atheists, but for linguistics and comparative mythology. Those terms do not fall within the defintion of Atheism according to these fields. Anyone can coin any term they want, but that does not make it the true academic definition thereof. If words are cheapened to non-meaning as clearly is occuring here with the term atheism, then it means nothing and adds no understanding to a discussion.

I think that you are the one abusing words by overly-restricting their meaning, thus poisoning the discussion.

But carry on if you like. I will just ignore nonsense terms like "true Atheist".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think that you are the one abusing words by overly-restricting their meaning, thus poisoning the discussion.

But carry on if you like. I will just ignore nonsense terms like "true Atheist".


eudaimonia,

Mark

And I meaningless terms like spiritual atheist. By the way, I also reject 'true atheist' as a term. I refer to the actual meaning of the term Atheist itself. True was just added on to distinguish it in my post from the other x-atheist terms used.

Apologies to the OP on going off topic.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It'd possibly be something you'd see in either Babylon-5 or Stargate....

To me, any SciFi scenario that features humanoid aliens is "soft" SCiFi by default. Chances are that any alien life we'd encounter would bear virtually no resemblance to ourselves and instead be just... you know... alien. Admittedly, this would render these species SO unrelatable as to render them unusable for any sort of drama or interaction, expect perhaps as an inscrutable enemy whose actions do not seem to make any sense.

So, I actually prefer "soft" SciFi, always keeping in mind that it's basically just fantasy with star ships and ray guns.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And I meaningless terms like spiritual atheist.

The word "spiritual" already has a problem in that few people seem to agree on just what it means. So, the term "spiritual atheist" is a meaningless term until definitions are agreed on.

To me, any SciFi scenario that features humanoid aliens is "soft" SCiFi by default.

JMS recognized the problem. I recall some Internet post of his once where he said that realistically an alien species would be so alien that it just couldn't act as a character in a story. I think he gave the example of a giant clam that one couldn't communicate with.

So, yeah. Space Opera has one foot in fantasy unless it dispenses with aliens altogether.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do you know....I found the post from JMS. Now that I re-read it (after many years), he doesn't seem to be talking about exactly what I remembered him saying. Take it for what it is.

http://mirrors.ntua.gr/b5/Usenet/jms94-03-usenet

1) Aliens aren't *alien* enough. You mention that the other shows
get gigged on this too, so B5 shouldn't be exempt, though you then go on
to note that we still have to cast on earth. Question is, therefore, is
the expectation realistic? Fact is, no matter what ANYONE does, ANY
alien on ANY tv series or movie is going to be written from a human point
of view because it's a human writing it, and a human acting the part.
There will never be an authentic alien until an alien really appears; the
rest is just human speculation. (And if you want to go for a really weird
approach, remember that this is a visual medium, and having someone talking
to a clam doesn't work *visually*. You can do stuff in a novel that you
simply cannot do in TV or movies.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gxg (G²)]

There is a great deal of diversity possible to atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

As it is, further, defining what it means to be both spiritual and an atheist, I was rather fascinated by those who noted themselves to be Atheist Muslim - as seen in Ali A. Rizvi: Why I Call Myself an 'Atheist Muslim'. Outside of that, As said elsewhere, pantheism is an Eastern worldview that is deeply spiritual even though there is no expression of belief in gods or goddesses. And other similar worldviews would be Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered Buddhism or Taoism and others.

Also, from a Christian perspective, early Christians were in fact called atheists because they refused to participate in the "religion" of the day. Historically, it was very interesting to see the ways fingers began to point at those who failed to honor the gods properly, at the “atheists” like the followers of Jesus were being blamed and how Justin responded to that....and yet even being willing to be labeled as "atheists" for not worshiping the Roman gods or the Emperor, they understood that accepting being seen as atheists did not mean automatically that faith in God was up for grabs. So when it comes to the ways that terms are defined and their original contexts, we have to do case-by-case basis.

We cannot get past the fact that atheism has been defined in MULTIPLE ways in several differing settings- and the same goes with spiritual terms, as it would be off for anyone else. Talking to atheists of so many variations, we have to be respectful. And as it concerns others from that perspective seeing the world as it is, I have to consider that the world would be VERY diverse for them when seeing how things play out in a universe with so many variations.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As it is, further, defining what it means to be both spiritual and an atheist, I was rather fascinated by those who noted themselves to be Atheist Muslim - as seen in Ali A. Rizvi: Why I Call Myself an 'Atheist Muslim'. Outside of that, As said elsewhere, pantheism is an Eastern worldview that is deeply spiritual even though there is no expression of belief in gods or goddesses. And other similar worldviews would be Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered Buddhism or Taoism and others.

Also, from a Christian perspective, early Christians were in fact called atheists because they refused to participate in the "religion" of the day. Historically, it was very interesting to see the ways fingers began to point at those who failed to honor the gods properly, at the “atheists” like the followers of Jesus were being blamed and how Justin responded to that....and yet even being willing to be labeled as "atheists" for not worshiping the Roman gods or the Emperor, they understood that accepting being seen as atheists did not mean automatically that faith in God was up for grabs. So when it comes to the ways that terms are defined and their original contexts, we have to do case-by-case basis.

The Romans could not understand how Christians could call both the Father God and Jesus God while rejecting the state gods. Hence they called them atheists. Socrates was also called an atheist for ridiculing the traditional greek gods.
Pantheism sees the universe itself as a god, otherwise it wouldn't be pantheism, so I disagree it can be called atheistic.

The definition of these terms are fluid. Today Atheism has become very much broadened out, so that its meaning of rejecting the existence of supernatural forces, its original academic meaning in the west since the late 1700s, has been forgotten. That is why Taoism and Confucianism were called religions, while today people are just as likely to call them philosophies. Certain religions like Shinto don't really have gods (Kami are not really gods, but emanation of a monistic unity), but their practitioners aren't really atheists on account of this. As we continually coin new terms, one always needs to ask 'what do you mean?' and this makes it exceedingly difficult to follow a conversation.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

To me, any SciFi scenario that features humanoid aliens is "soft" SCiFi by default. Chances are that any alien life we'd encounter would bear virtually no resemblance to ourselves and instead be just... you know... alien. Admittedly, this would render these species SO unrelatable as to render them unusable for any sort of drama or interaction, expect perhaps as an inscrutable enemy whose actions do not seem to make any sense.

So, I actually prefer "soft" SciFi, always keeping in mind that it's basically just fantasy with star ships and ray guns.

I would think that it'd be a hard assumption to assume that something being radically different from us cannot be humanoid - or have human aspects. Something with 4 legs or 4 arms or - one eye - who knows. It is interesting.

As no one knows what an alien species will look like, it's really a matter of subjectivity with what one sees as "soft" SciFi - others would see amoeba-like species or other creatures alien as subject to one's imagination.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Apologies to the OP on going off topic.

Not a problem - but as said before, it connects to discussion only in the sense that other alien lifeforms are also going to have diverse views and diversity within a camp or ideology just as it's possible here on this world.

The Romans could not understand how Christians could call both the Father God and Jesus God while rejecting the state gods. Hence they called them atheists. Socrates was also called an atheist for ridiculing the traditional greek gods.
Pantheism sees the universe itself as a god, otherwise it wouldn't be pantheism, so I disagree it can be called atheistic.

Not all forms of pantheism, of course, are about calling the universe God - as that is a loaded definition that other pantheists have noted repeatedly when it comes to noting that the universe gives meaning. There's no escaping that reality - regardless of you disagreeing - since this has been noted for ages, as pantheist have long spoken on the issue and we have to deal with the term. Growing up in family with a lot of those dynamics at certain places, it is not a reality I'm unfamilar with and Dealing with other pantheists for some time now, terms are important to address as they note. Pantheism is the belief that all dualistic theisms are based on mistaken assumptions, that there is no point in discussing God as something external to our obvious existence. The 17th century Dutch philosopher Spinoza was known for this - even while there were others in pantheistic religions who felt the universe was God in the sense that a person needed to seek oneness wit it (even while having an atheistic reality in not believing in gods/goddesses).According to Pantheism, The Universe and God amount to one and the same thing...and there are levels

For a brief description of where atheism lines up with that:'

Naturalistic pantheism is a phrase referring to a kind of pantheism, and has been used in various ways. It has been used to identify God or divinity with concrete things, determinism, or the substance of the Universe. God, from these perspectives, is seen as the aggregate of all unified natural phenomena. The phrase has often been associated with the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, although academics differ on how it is used.

A full grasp of “everything” is beyond our reach. Yet, some may take a mystical and abstract phrase like “Everything is God” as a strict and literal claim. To do that, one must assume something similar to a theistic attitude of certainty for what is a non-theistic concept full of uncertainty. Many people like to believe they have everything figured out, creating strict dogmas and doctrines. This causes them to create and place themselves into different categories of certainty. They assume pantheism can be broken into categories in the same way. But this is a misperception.

If there are exactly a billion pantheists, then there are exactly a billion different ‘kinds of pantheism’. That's because pantheism is an idea about "everything" - and "everything" is different for every person. No two people will share the same concept of what "everything" actually means. Yet, the abstract perception that the known and unknowns which we call “everything” is God - that broad and open idea about divine unity is shared by all who are considered pantheists.

Nevertheless, categories are still invented. Consider a redundant expression like, “naturalistic pantheism”, a phrase one writer uses to reject an “idealistic pantheism” or a "dualistic pantheism". Inevitably, one has to appoint oneself as an authority on how to distinguish what is natural and what is idealistic. The problem, of course, is all pantheists have a claim on the details of what they consider natural. All can also claim other points of view as idealistic. And all versions of pantheism will have dualistic elements since we have no way of communicating our perceptions of everything beyond dualistic words and methods. Since pantheism is a view of “everything”, one who claims their own view of everything as more ‘natural’ and calls others ‘idealists’ may as well call oneself a “superior pantheist”. This “superior” attitude is driven by a more all-knowing certain approach to nature, and could perhaps be a basis for giving oneself moral authority of telling others how to behave. It may be a lesson in how a humble, mystical, and inclusive concept can become distorted into dogma by those who are exceedingly enthusiastic about their personal views and interpretations of science.

If pantheism were taken as an all-knowing view of everything and God, including telling you what to do and how to behave, it would be the ultimate extremist view. That’s probably why no notable historical figure has ever taken an all-knowing pantheistic position. That would require one to claim that they know “everything”. Pantheism, as it has been demonstrated in philosophy and various traditions, claims no absolute awareness of everything or any special moral authority to create rules or commandments. Once that happens, it exits the realm pantheism.

The God of pantheism is unknowable beyond what science and our personal understandings are able to reveal. That’s why categories of pantheism are subjective, ineffectual, and never agreed upon by scholars. Many pantheists even avoid using the word God because it represents for them a mostly unknowable and impersonal idea. That’s despite the fact that pantheism completely depends on a God concept.

If one prefers to believe in no version of God or divinity whatsoever, the appropriate word for that is still atheist. If one's core belief involves the unity of natural laws, the closest philosophical word we have is naturalist, a word which can apply to any pantheist. If one's core belief involves the divine unity of natural laws, the word we have for that is pantheist. Naturalism and pantheism are similar except for what pantheism adds - the audacity of divine language and appeal to our deepest emotions as they relate to the celebration of the natural laws. If naturalism is a lecture, pantheism is a song. It is the shared inspiration and philosophy of many exceptional individuals, each who have a unique take on “everything”.

​

*An alternative way of using naturalism is to mean, “a non-belief in the supernatural”. Pantheism, a philosophy of unity, makes no distinction between natural and supernatural. As Spinoza put it, everything is "God or Nature". The natural is the supernatural and the supernatural is the natural. Words lose their relevance with the perception of divine unity. The distinction of supernatural and natural exists for the sake of arguments about duality and for the sake of theism and its opposition, atheism. A “naturalistic pantheism” in this sense is an oxymoron. One cannot reject the supernatural if one does not acknowledge a distinction between natural and supernatural in the first place. Far from "naturalistic" pantheism, this would be a schizophrenic pantheism.
​

As noted best elsewhere:

• Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
  
• Naturalistic Pantheism - University Press Scholarship

The view according to which God and the world are one. The name pantheist was introduced by John Toland (1670-1722) in his "Socinianism truly Stated" (1705), while pantheism was first used by his opponent Fay in "Defensio Religionis" (1709). Tolandpublished his "Pantheisticon" in 1732. The doctrine itself goes back to the early Indian philosophy; it appears during the course of history in a great variety of forms, and it enters into or draws support from so many other systems that, as Professor Flint says ("Antitheistic Theories", 334), "there is probably no pure pantheism". Taken in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying God and the world, Pantheism is simply Atheism. In any of its forms it involves Monism, but the latter is not necessarily pantheistic. Emanationismmay easily take on a pantheistic meaning and as pointed out in the Encyclical "Pascendi dominici gregis", the same is true of the modern doctrine of immanence.

Varieties
These agree in the fundamental doctrine that beneath the apparent diversity and multiplicity of things in the universe there is one only being absolutely necessary, eternal, and infinite. Two questions then arise: What is the nature of this being? How are the manifold appearances to be explained? The principal answers are incorporated in such different earlier systems as Brahminism,Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, and Gnosticism, and in the later systems of Scotus Eriugena and Giordano Bruno.

Spinoza's pantheism was realistic: the one being of the world had an objective character. But the systems that developed during the nineteenth century went to the extreme of idealism. They are properly grouped under the designation of "transcendental pantheism", as their starting-point is found in Kant's critical philosophy. Kant had distinguished in knowledge the matter which comes through sensation from the outer world, and the forms, which are purely subjective and yet are the more important factors. Furthermore, he had declared that we know the appearances (phenomena) of things but not the things-in-themselves (noumena). And he had made the ideas of the soul, the world, and God merely immanent, so that any attempt to demonstrate their objective value must end in contradiction. This subjectivism paved the way for the pantheistic theories of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel.

Fichte set back into the mind all the elements of knowledge, i.e. matter as well as form; phenomena and indeed the whole of reality are products of the thinking Ego-not the individual mind but the absolute or universal self-consciousness. Through the three-fold process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, the Ego posits the non-Ego not only theoretically but also for practical purposes, i.e. for effort and struggle which are necessary in order to attain the highest good. In the same way the Ego, free in itself, posits other free agents by whose existence its own freedom is limited. Hence the law of right and all morality; but hence also the Divine being. The living, active moral order of the world, says Fichte, is itself God, we need no other God, and can conceive of no other. The idea of Godas a distinct substance is impossible and contradictory. Such, at any rate, is the earlier form of his doctrine, though in his later theorizing he emphasizes more and more the concepts of the Absolute as embracing all individuals within itself.

According to Schelling, the Absolute is the "identity of all differences"-object and subject, nature and mind, the real order and the ideal; and the knowledge of this identity is obtained by an intellectual intuition which, abstracting from every individual thinker and every possible object of thought, contemplates the absolute reason. Out of this original unity all things evolve in opposite directions:nature as the negative pole, mind or spirit as the positive pole of a vast magnet, the universe. Within this totality each thing, like the particle of a magnet, has its nature or form determined according as it manifests subjectivity or objectivity in greater degree. Historyis but the gradual self-revelation of the Absolute; when its final period will come to pass we know not; but when it does come, thenGod will be.

The system of Hegel has been called "logical pantheism", as it is constructed on the "dialectical" method; and "panlogismus", since it describes the entire world-process as the evolution of the Idea. Starting from the most abstract of notions, i.e. pure being, theAbsolute develops first the various categories; then it externalizes itself, and Nature is the result; finally it returns upon itself, regainsunity and self-consciousness, becomes the individual spirit of man. The Absolute, therefore, is Mind; but it attains its fulness only by a process of evolution or "becoming", the stages of which form the history of the universe.

These idealistic constructions were followed by a reaction due largely to the development of the natural sciences. But these in turnoffer, apparently, new support to the central positions of pantheism, or at any rate they point, it is claimed, to that very unity and that gradual unfolding which pantheism has all along asserted. The principle of the conservation of energy through ceaseless transformations, and the doctrine of evolution applied to all things and all phenomena, are readily interpreted by the pantheist in favour of his own system. Even where the ultimate reality is said to be unknowable as in Herbert Spencer's "Synthetic Philosophy", it is still one and the same being that manifests itself alike in evolving matter and in the consciousness that evolves out of lower material forms. Nor is it surprising that some writers should see in pantheism the final outcome of all speculation and the definitiveexpression which the human mind has found for the totality of things.

This statement, in fact, may well serve as a summary of the pantheistic doctrine:

• 
  
  
  • Reality is a unitary being; individual things have no absolute independence- they have existence in the All-One, the ens realissimum et et perfectissimum of which they are the more or less independent members;
  • The All-One manifests itself to us, so far as it has any manifestations, in the two sides of reality-nature and history;
  • The universal interaction that goes on in the physical world is the showing forth of the inner æsthetic teleological necessity with which the All-One unfolds his essential being in a multitude of harmonious modifications, a cosmos of concrete ideas (monads,entelechies). This internal necessity is at the same time absolute freedom or self-realization.

GG

The definition of these terms are fluid. Today Atheism has become very much broadened out, so that its meaning of rejecting the existence of supernatural forces
, its original academic meaning in the west since the late 1700s, has been forgotten. That is why Taoism and Confucianism were called religions, while today people are just as likely to call them philosophies.

The Early Church had no issue noting that they did not have any problem being called atheists since they had no problem understanding that there are forms of atheists. The same has been discussed by atheists in the 1700s and other places where the belief in gods or goddessses was not present even though there was belief in a Divine Orchestration/design to the universe - Providence, Fortune.....this is why many noted that aspects of Deism were really supernatural .... Providence, the quality in divinity on which humankind bases the belief in a benevolent intervention in human affairs and the affairs of the world - and the forms that this belief takes differ, depending on the context of the religion and the culture in which they function. As Britannica discussed on Providence theology:

Basic forms of providence
Basically, there are two possible forms of belief in providence. The first is belief in more or less divine beings that are responsible for the world generally and for the welfare of humans specifically. Although omnipotence as an attribute of gods is rare, it is true that, as a rule, gods and other divine beings have considerable power not only over human destiny but also over nature. The gods take care of the world and of humankind, and their intentions toward humans are normally positive. The capriciousness and arbitrariness of the gods of paganism exist for the most part only in the imagination of those Christiantheologians who attempted to denigrate the pagan religions. Gods and humans are generally connected into one community by reciprocal duties and privileges. The belief in evil spirits does not contradict this belief in providence but, on the contrary, strengthens it, just as in Christianity the belief in Satan might serve to strengthen the belief in God.

The second form consists of belief in a cosmic order in which human welfare has its appointed place. This order is usually conceived as a divine order that is well intentioned toward human beings and is working for their well-being as long as they are willing to insert themselves into it, to follow it willingly, and not to upset it by perversion or rebellion. The firmness of the order, however, may become inexorable and thus lead to fatalism, the belief in an impersonal destiny against which human agency is powerless. In that case a clash between the concepts of providence and fatalism is inevitable. In most religions, however, both views are combined in some way.

.....The Stoic philosophers thoroughly discussed the significance of the term providence, and some of them wrote treatises on the subject. A hymn to Zeus written about 300 bce by Cleanthes, a Greek poet and philosopher, is a glorification of the god as a benevolent and foreseeing ruler of the world and of humankind. According to Cleanthes, God has planned the world in accordance with this providence:

For thee this whole vast cosmos, wheeling round

The earth, obeys, and where thou leadest

It follows, ruled willingly by thee.
​

The author asserts that “naught upon Earth is wrought in thy despite, O God” and that in Zeus all things are harmonized. Seneca, a Roman Stoic philosopher, formulates the belief in providence in one of his dialogues as follows: humans should believe “that providence rules the world and that God cares for us.” The Stoic school disagreed with those who believed that the world was ruled by blind fate; they did not deny that a controlling power exists, but, as everything happens according to a benevolent divine plan, they preferred to call this power providence. According to the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius, God wills everything that happens to human beings, and for that reason nothing that occurs can be considered evil. Stoic ideas about providence influenced Christianity.

In later Latin, after the emperor Augustus (died 14 ce), the word providence was used as a designation of the deity. Seneca, for example, wrote that it is proper to apply the term providence to God. Finally, providence was personified as a proper goddess in her own right by Macrobius, a Neoplatonic Roman author, who wrote in defense of paganism about 400 ce.

​

Epicurus, a 4th–3rd-century-bce Greek philosopher, contested the Stoic belief in divine providence, but the objections of his followers could not change the spiritual climate of the Greco-Roman world. More eloquent, perhaps, than the dissertations of the learned Stoic philosophers were the many stories found in a work by Aelian, an early 3rd-century-ce Roman rhetorician, about strange events and miraculous occurrences ascribed to providence. Aelian, however, was more interested in sensational stories than in historic accuracy.

The several meanings of the Latin word providentia exactly mirror those of its Greek equivalent, pronoia. Herodotus, the historian of the 5th centurybce, was the first Greek author to use the word in a religious sense when he mentioned divine providence as the source of the wisdom that keeps nature in balance and prevents one kind of creature from prevailing over all others. Writers such as the historian Xenophon and the biographer Plutarch used the word for the watchful care of the gods over humankind and the world.

The belief in the existence of a blind and inexorable fate can lead to a conflict with the belief in a benevolent providence. In the Greco-Roman world, where fatalistic belief was strong and where it found a popular expression in astrology, the belief that the whole world, but particularly the human realm, is governed by the stars was contested by Judaism and Christianity. ​

What many atheist believe - as noted before - is Providence when they look to the universe for meaning, being very spiritual in that regards.

The closet definition for things would be akin to the Force in Star Wars, where a spiritual reality could be manipulated regardless of where one stood - good or bad - as noted before:

Something to consider....in the world of Star Wars where there's no deity behind the Force and the Light SIDE and Dark SIDE are both parts of the same Force that people can access, if there's no real good or evil since both sides have access to the same source of energy, then how can there truly be a monomyth? It'd be like traveling one big circle to defeat another side that's already a part of you.

For we have Grey Jedi and Dark Jedi - both of which are different than Sith.....

• Dark Jedi
  
  
• Gray Jedi

​

Did not know about the connection with Yoda being influenced by a Buddhist master, but it definitely makes things more interesting when seeing how many Asian religious views were brought to bear on the film

​

Things are complicated..

Certain religions like Shinto don't really have gods (Kami are not really gods, but emanation of a monistic unity), but their practitioners aren't really atheists on account of this.

Shintosim wasn't actually based on the concept of not having gods and this goes back to understanding the religions properly. As a basic:

• There were multiple points where Shinto was very much forced onto the populace itself - by pain of death. This is not really out of the ordinary - it happened during WWII and earlier, with the enforcement of worship in the Shinto Shrines being a big deal. It's hard to ignore when there was a program of mandatory Shinto shrine worship with the penalty of imprisonment, torture, and likely death for those who disobey. Koreans were forced to worship at Shinto shrines beginning in 1935 (with Shinto being associated with the Emperor and worship of him, who claims descent from the deity of Ise) and there were previous times emperors would do the same. We also have the Japanese warrior monks who literally fought in regards to the principles of Shinto with violence to others who did not get in line.
  
• There are some excellent historical reads on the matter that helps to bring home the issue - as seen in Japanese Warrior Monks AD 949-1603 - Page 42 (by Stephen Turnbul - an excellent historian on Japanese culture) - with the pdf on the book found here...and Alien Rule - Michael Hechter - Google Books and Religion in the Military Worldwide - Google Books and If I Perish - Esther Ahn Kim - Google Books

As we continually coin new terms, one always needs to ask 'what do you mean?' and this makes it exceedingly difficult to follow a conversation.

Much of it goes back to understanding the limitations of context and what actually has happened historically and always being prepared to see where others are coming from.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I would suspect that their sense of spirituality would correspond with their psychology/biology/environment. With the latter being the biggest indicator of any similarity between us and them.

Concepts such as love, and suffering reverberate strongly within our own religious traditions, but an intelligent alien species may have evolved neither and as a consequence such ideas would be entirely absent from their religious views.

I also suspect that there is intelligent life out there who lack any notion of "emotion" and thus probably never had a drive for spirituality, and thus a largely atheistic history.

It is an interesting dynamic to consider....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

JMS recognized the problem. I recall some Internet post of his once where he said that realistically an alien species would be so alien that it just couldn't act as a character in a story. I think he gave the example of a giant clam that one couldn't communicate with.

So, yeah. Space Opera has one foot in fantasy unless it dispenses with aliens altogether.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Startrek did a good number of times where aliens looked truly bizzare and on many shapes/sciences

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Not a problem - but as said before, it connects to discussion only in the sense that other alien lifeforms are also going to have diverse views and diversity within a camp or ideology just as it's possible here on this world.


Not all forms of pantheism, of course, are about calling the universe God - as that is a loaded definition that other pantheists have noted repeatedly when it comes to noting that the universe gives meaning. There's no escaping that reality - regardless of you disagreeing - since this has been noted for ages, as pantheist have long spoken on the issue and we have to deal with the term. Growing up in family with a lot of those dynamics at certain places, it is not a reality I'm unfamilar with and Dealing with other pantheists for some time now, terms are important to address as they note. Pantheism is the belief that all dualistic theisms are based on mistaken assumptions, that there is no point in discussing God as something external to our obvious existence. The 17th century Dutch philosopher Spinoza was known for this - even while there were others in pantheistic religions who felt the universe was God in the sense that a person needed to seek oneness wit it (even while having an atheistic reality in not believing in gods/goddesses).According to Pantheism, The Universe and God amount to one and the same thing...and there are levels

For a brief description of where atheism lines up with that:'

Naturalistic pantheism is a phrase referring to a kind of pantheism, and has been used in various ways. It has been used to identify God or divinity with concrete things, determinism, or the substance of the Universe. God, from these perspectives, is seen as the aggregate of all unified natural phenomena. The phrase has often been associated with the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, although academics differ on how it is used.

A full grasp of “everything” is beyond our reach. Yet, some may take a mystical and abstract phrase like “Everything is God” as a strict and literal claim. To do that, one must assume something similar to a theistic attitude of certainty for what is a non-theistic concept full of uncertainty. Many people like to believe they have everything figured out, creating strict dogmas and doctrines. This causes them to create and place themselves into different categories of certainty. They assume pantheism can be broken into categories in the same way. But this is a misperception.

If there are exactly a billion pantheists, then there are exactly a billion different ‘kinds of pantheism’. That's because pantheism is an idea about "everything" - and "everything" is different for every person. No two people will share the same concept of what "everything" actually means. Yet, the abstract perception that the known and unknowns which we call “everything” is God - that broad and open idea about divine unity is shared by all who are considered pantheists.

Nevertheless, categories are still invented. Consider a redundant expression like, “naturalistic pantheism”, a phrase one writer uses to reject an “idealistic pantheism” or a "dualistic pantheism". Inevitably, one has to appoint oneself as an authority on how to distinguish what is natural and what is idealistic. The problem, of course, is all pantheists have a claim on the details of what they consider natural. All can also claim other points of view as idealistic. And all versions of pantheism will have dualistic elements since we have no way of communicating our perceptions of everything beyond dualistic words and methods. Since pantheism is a view of “everything”, one who claims their own view of everything as more ‘natural’ and calls others ‘idealists’ may as well call oneself a “superior pantheist”. This “superior” attitude is driven by a more all-knowing certain approach to nature, and could perhaps be a basis for giving oneself moral authority of telling others how to behave. It may be a lesson in how a humble, mystical, and inclusive concept can become distorted into dogma by those who are exceedingly enthusiastic about their personal views and interpretations of science.

If pantheism were taken as an all-knowing view of everything and God, including telling you what to do and how to behave, it would be the ultimate extremist view. That’s probably why no notable historical figure has ever taken an all-knowing pantheistic position. That would require one to claim that they know “everything”. Pantheism, as it has been demonstrated in philosophy and various traditions, claims no absolute awareness of everything or any special moral authority to create rules or commandments. Once that happens, it exits the realm pantheism.

The God of pantheism is unknowable beyond what science and our personal understandings are able to reveal. That’s why categories of pantheism are subjective, ineffectual, and never agreed upon by scholars. Many pantheists even avoid using the word God because it represents for them a mostly unknowable and impersonal idea. That’s despite the fact that pantheism completely depends on a God concept.

If one prefers to believe in no version of God or divinity whatsoever, the appropriate word for that is still atheist. If one's core belief involves the unity of natural laws, the closest philosophical word we have is naturalist, a word which can apply to any pantheist. If one's core belief involves the divine unity of natural laws, the word we have for that is pantheist. Naturalism and pantheism are similar except for what pantheism adds - the audacity of divine language and appeal to our deepest emotions as they relate to the celebration of the natural laws. If naturalism is a lecture, pantheism is a song. It is the shared inspiration and philosophy of many exceptional individuals, each who have a unique take on “everything”.

​

*An alternative way of using naturalism is to mean, “a non-belief in the supernatural”. Pantheism, a philosophy of unity, makes no distinction between natural and supernatural. As Spinoza put it, everything is "God or Nature". The natural is the supernatural and the supernatural is the natural. Words lose their relevance with the perception of divine unity. The distinction of supernatural and natural exists for the sake of arguments about duality and for the sake of theism and its opposition, atheism. A “naturalistic pantheism” in this sense is an oxymoron. One cannot reject the supernatural if one does not acknowledge a distinction between natural and supernatural in the first place. Far from "naturalistic" pantheism, this would be a schizophrenic pantheism.
​

As noted best elsewhere:

• Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
  
• Naturalistic Pantheism - University Press Scholarship

The view according to which God and the world are one. The name pantheist was introduced by John Toland (1670-1722) in his "Socinianism truly Stated" (1705), while pantheism was first used by his opponent Fay in "Defensio Religionis" (1709). Tolandpublished his "Pantheisticon" in 1732. The doctrine itself goes back to the early Indian philosophy; it appears during the course of history in a great variety of forms, and it enters into or draws support from so many other systems that, as Professor Flint says ("Antitheistic Theories", 334), "there is probably no pure pantheism". Taken in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying God and the world, Pantheism is simply Atheism. In any of its forms it involves Monism, but the latter is not necessarily pantheistic. Emanationismmay easily take on a pantheistic meaning and as pointed out in the Encyclical "Pascendi dominici gregis", the same is true of the modern doctrine of immanence.

Varieties
These agree in the fundamental doctrine that beneath the apparent diversity and multiplicity of things in the universe there is one only being absolutely necessary, eternal, and infinite. Two questions then arise: What is the nature of this being? How are the manifold appearances to be explained? The principal answers are incorporated in such different earlier systems as Brahminism,Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, and Gnosticism, and in the later systems of Scotus Eriugena and Giordano Bruno.

Spinoza's pantheism was realistic: the one being of the world had an objective character. But the systems that developed during the nineteenth century went to the extreme of idealism. They are properly grouped under the designation of "transcendental pantheism", as their starting-point is found in Kant's critical philosophy. Kant had distinguished in knowledge the matter which comes through sensation from the outer world, and the forms, which are purely subjective and yet are the more important factors. Furthermore, he had declared that we know the appearances (phenomena) of things but not the things-in-themselves (noumena). And he had made the ideas of the soul, the world, and God merely immanent, so that any attempt to demonstrate their objective value must end in contradiction. This subjectivism paved the way for the pantheistic theories of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel.

Fichte set back into the mind all the elements of knowledge, i.e. matter as well as form; phenomena and indeed the whole of reality are products of the thinking Ego-not the individual mind but the absolute or universal self-consciousness. Through the three-fold process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, the Ego posits the non-Ego not only theoretically but also for practical purposes, i.e. for effort and struggle which are necessary in order to attain the highest good. In the same way the Ego, free in itself, posits other free agents by whose existence its own freedom is limited. Hence the law of right and all morality; but hence also the Divine being. The living, active moral order of the world, says Fichte, is itself God, we need no other God, and can conceive of no other. The idea of Godas a distinct substance is impossible and contradictory. Such, at any rate, is the earlier form of his doctrine, though in his later theorizing he emphasizes more and more the concepts of the Absolute as embracing all individuals within itself.

According to Schelling, the Absolute is the "identity of all differences"-object and subject, nature and mind, the real order and the ideal; and the knowledge of this identity is obtained by an intellectual intuition which, abstracting from every individual thinker and every possible object of thought, contemplates the absolute reason. Out of this original unity all things evolve in opposite directions:nature as the negative pole, mind or spirit as the positive pole of a vast magnet, the universe. Within this totality each thing, like the particle of a magnet, has its nature or form determined according as it manifests subjectivity or objectivity in greater degree. Historyis but the gradual self-revelation of the Absolute; when its final period will come to pass we know not; but when it does come, thenGod will be.

The system of Hegel has been called "logical pantheism", as it is constructed on the "dialectical" method; and "panlogismus", since it describes the entire world-process as the evolution of the Idea. Starting from the most abstract of notions, i.e. pure being, theAbsolute develops first the various categories; then it externalizes itself, and Nature is the result; finally it returns upon itself, regainsunity and self-consciousness, becomes the individual spirit of man. The Absolute, therefore, is Mind; but it attains its fulness only by a process of evolution or "becoming", the stages of which form the history of the universe.

These idealistic constructions were followed by a reaction due largely to the development of the natural sciences. But these in turnoffer, apparently, new support to the central positions of pantheism, or at any rate they point, it is claimed, to that very unity and that gradual unfolding which pantheism has all along asserted. The principle of the conservation of energy through ceaseless transformations, and the doctrine of evolution applied to all things and all phenomena, are readily interpreted by the pantheist in favour of his own system. Even where the ultimate reality is said to be unknowable as in Herbert Spencer's "Synthetic Philosophy", it is still one and the same being that manifests itself alike in evolving matter and in the consciousness that evolves out of lower material forms. Nor is it surprising that some writers should see in pantheism the final outcome of all speculation and the definitiveexpression which the human mind has found for the totality of things.

This statement, in fact, may well serve as a summary of the pantheistic doctrine:

• 
  
  
  • Reality is a unitary being; individual things have no absolute independence- they have existence in the All-One, the ens realissimum et et perfectissimum of which they are the more or less independent members;
  • The All-One manifests itself to us, so far as it has any manifestations, in the two sides of reality-nature and history;
  • The universal interaction that goes on in the physical world is the showing forth of the inner æsthetic teleological necessity with which the All-One unfolds his essential being in a multitude of harmonious modifications, a cosmos of concrete ideas (monads,entelechies). This internal necessity is at the same time absolute freedom or self-realization.

GG

The Early Church had no issue noting that they did not have any problem being called atheists since they had no problem understanding that there are forms of atheists. The same has been discussed by atheists in the 1700s and other places where the belief in gods or goddessses was not present even though there was belief in a Divine Orchestration/design to the universe - Providence, Fortune.....this is why many noted that aspects of Deism were really supernatural .... Providence, the quality in divinity on which humankind bases the belief in a benevolent intervention in human affairs and the affairs of the world - and the forms that this belief takes differ, depending on the context of the religion and the culture in which they function. As Britannica discussed on Providence theology:

Basic forms of providence
Basically, there are two possible forms of belief in providence. The first is belief in more or less divine beings that are responsible for the world generally and for the welfare of humans specifically. Although omnipotence as an attribute of gods is rare, it is true that, as a rule, gods and other divine beings have considerable power not only over human destiny but also over nature. The gods take care of the world and of humankind, and their intentions toward humans are normally positive. The capriciousness and arbitrariness of the gods of paganism exist for the most part only in the imagination of those Christiantheologians who attempted to denigrate the pagan religions. Gods and humans are generally connected into one community by reciprocal duties and privileges. The belief in evil spirits does not contradict this belief in providence but, on the contrary, strengthens it, just as in Christianity the belief in Satan might serve to strengthen the belief in God.

The second form consists of belief in a cosmic order in which human welfare has its appointed place. This order is usually conceived as a divine order that is well intentioned toward human beings and is working for their well-being as long as they are willing to insert themselves into it, to follow it willingly, and not to upset it by perversion or rebellion. The firmness of the order, however, may become inexorable and thus lead to fatalism, the belief in an impersonal destiny against which human agency is powerless. In that case a clash between the concepts of providence and fatalism is inevitable. In most religions, however, both views are combined in some way.

.....The Stoic philosophers thoroughly discussed the significance of the term providence, and some of them wrote treatises on the subject. A hymn to Zeus written about 300 bce by Cleanthes, a Greek poet and philosopher, is a glorification of the god as a benevolent and foreseeing ruler of the world and of humankind. According to Cleanthes, God has planned the world in accordance with this providence:

For thee this whole vast cosmos, wheeling round

The earth, obeys, and where thou leadest

It follows, ruled willingly by thee.
​

The author asserts that “naught upon Earth is wrought in thy despite, O God” and that in Zeus all things are harmonized. Seneca, a Roman Stoic philosopher, formulates the belief in providence in one of his dialogues as follows: humans should believe “that providence rules the world and that God cares for us.” The Stoic school disagreed with those who believed that the world was ruled by blind fate; they did not deny that a controlling power exists, but, as everything happens according to a benevolent divine plan, they preferred to call this power providence. According to the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius, God wills everything that happens to human beings, and for that reason nothing that occurs can be considered evil. Stoic ideas about providence influenced Christianity.

In later Latin, after the emperor Augustus (died 14 ce), the word providence was used as a designation of the deity. Seneca, for example, wrote that it is proper to apply the term providence to God. Finally, providence was personified as a proper goddess in her own right by Macrobius, a Neoplatonic Roman author, who wrote in defense of paganism about 400 ce.

​

Epicurus, a 4th–3rd-century-bce Greek philosopher, contested the Stoic belief in divine providence, but the objections of his followers could not change the spiritual climate of the Greco-Roman world. More eloquent, perhaps, than the dissertations of the learned Stoic philosophers were the many stories found in a work by Aelian, an early 3rd-century-ce Roman rhetorician, about strange events and miraculous occurrences ascribed to providence. Aelian, however, was more interested in sensational stories than in historic accuracy.

The several meanings of the Latin word providentia exactly mirror those of its Greek equivalent, pronoia. Herodotus, the historian of the 5th centurybce, was the first Greek author to use the word in a religious sense when he mentioned divine providence as the source of the wisdom that keeps nature in balance and prevents one kind of creature from prevailing over all others. Writers such as the historian Xenophon and the biographer Plutarch used the word for the watchful care of the gods over humankind and the world.

The belief in the existence of a blind and inexorable fate can lead to a conflict with the belief in a benevolent providence. In the Greco-Roman world, where fatalistic belief was strong and where it found a popular expression in astrology, the belief that the whole world, but particularly the human realm, is governed by the stars was contested by Judaism and Christianity. ​

What many atheist believe - as noted before - is Providence when they look to the universe for meaning, being very spiritual in that regards.

The closet definition for things would be akin to the Force in Star Wars, where a spiritual reality could be manipulated regardless of where one stood - good or bad - as noted before:

​

Things are complicated..

Shintosim wasn't actually based on the concept of not having gods and this goes back to understanding the religions properly. As a basic:

• There were multiple points where Shinto was very much forced onto the populace itself - by pain of death. This is not really out of the ordinary - it happened during WWII and earlier, with the enforcement of worship in the Shinto Shrines being a big deal. It's hard to ignore when there was a program of mandatory Shinto shrine worship with the penalty of imprisonment, torture, and likely death for those who disobey. Koreans were forced to worship at Shinto shrines beginning in 1935 (with Shinto being associated with the Emperor and worship of him, who claims descent from the deity of Ise) and there were previous times emperors would do the same. We also have the Japanese warrior monks who literally fought in regards to the principles of Shinto with violence to others who did not get in line.
  
• There are some excellent historical reads on the matter that helps to bring home the issue - as seen in Japanese Warrior Monks AD 949-1603 - Page 42 (by Stephen Turnbul - an excellent historian on Japanese culture) - with the pdf on the book found here...and Alien Rule - Michael Hechter - Google Books and Religion in the Military Worldwide - Google Books and If I Perish - Esther Ahn Kim - Google Books

Much of it goes back to understanding the limitations of context and what actually has happened historically and always being prepared to see where others are coming from.

Thank you for your extensive quotations, but as I said before, I don't see the terms Atheist and Spiritual as compatible according to my definition of what constitutes Atheism. Deists and people who believe in Providence are not Atheists in my estimation.

I never said Shinto was based on not having gods, only that a Kami is not really a god. Whether it was forced or not or the various forms from state to sect to the new religions is irrelevant.

Definitions are complicated and I feel the plurality of terms makes it impossible to follow what people mean, so we must either agree on definitions or explain what is meant by the others on a clear manner.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thank you for your extensive quotations, but as I said before, I don't see the terms Atheist and Spiritual as compatible according to my definition of what constitutes Atheism. Deists and people who believe in Providence are not Atheists in my estimation.

Thank you for the response, but as said before we are not entitled to make up definitions for atheism based on what you may or may not feel comfortable with. The same goes for anything pertaining to the spiritual and this has been present for centuries. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy (i.e. claiming cannot fly simply because it goes against a preference, whether that be Atheists believing in Fate or Atheists who believe the universe gives meaning. The same goes for panentheist - which is NOT about simply believing the universe is God and we cannot be dishonest with the definitions - although we can say when we're not comfortable with a connection.

I never said Shinto was based on not having gods, only that a Kami is not really a god. Whether it was forced or not or the various forms from state to sect to the new religions is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant talking on Shinto not having gods when it is equivocation claiming Kami is not a god since the focus was on Eastern religions that did not have gods or goddesses - thus meaning Shinto did not need to be brought up and you brought it up, so that cannot be dismissed.

Definitions are complicated and I feel the plurality of terms makes it impossible to follow what people mean, so we must either agree on definitions or explain what is meant by the others on a clear manner.

That's fine that you feel that way. Nonetheless, it does not matter with the diverse definitions that have always been present and not wanting to deal with that plurality does not change where it has always been present. Wisdom does not demand for a definition to be universal when the definition had differing aspects from the get-go. There was already clear explaining of issues and the bottom line is that differences of experiences do not go counter to differences of etymology in a word.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thank you for the response, but as said before we are not entitled to make up definitions for atheism based on what you may or may not feel comfortable with. The same goes for anything pertaining to the spiritual and this has been present for centuries. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy (i.e. claiming cannot fly simply because it goes against a preference, whether that be Atheists believing in Fate or Atheists who believe the universe gives meaning. The same goes for panentheist - which is NOT about simply believing the universe is God and we cannot be dishonest with the definitions - although we can say when we're not comfortable with a connection.
It is irrelevant talking on Shinto not having gods when it is equivocation claiming Kami is not a god since the focus was on Eastern religions that did not have gods or goddesses - thus meaning Shinto did not need to be brought up and you brought it up, so that cannot be dismissed.
That's fine that you feel that way. Nonetheless, it does not matter with the diverse definitions that have always been present and not wanting to deal with that plurality does not change where it has always been present. Wisdom does not demand for a definition to be universal when the definition had differing aspects from the get-go. There was already clear explaining of issues and the bottom line is that differences of experiences do not go counter to differences of etymology in a word.

I don't follow your reasoning. Atheism cannot be spiritual by its academic definition for the last 300 years sans the last 40 or so, which was my point. It has nothing to do with preference etc., it seems more that you are arguing in that direction, but I might be wrong as I don't understand how much you post is in any way relevant to what I said.

Shinto was an example of something that was obviously religion without a concept that can easily be classed as a god. I don't understand what you are trying to say regarding this religion.

This is merely going around in circles, so I will cease this discussion, I think we are severely misunderstanding each other.