If you’ve watched AronRa’s lectures, that passage from Psalms is a pretty direct reference to Yahweh’s nature of originally being a previously attested and syncretized air god. He has other examples than this though, and couches it in terms of Conan the Barbarian. I’ll post up the video in a bit when I get to my PC.
ETA:
Damn, I can’t find it. But I’ve watched the video several times, it’s a lecture. I can’t believe Youtube doesn’t immediately serve it up to me when I search “aronra history of god”. Maybe you’re better off looking for Richard Carrier’s stuff.
This article by AronRa seems to be covering the same material.
As for the impetus to change YHWH’s image from the terrifying volcano-god in Exodus to that of a relatively subtle air-god, a likely scenario (I think) was illustrated in an old Arnold Swartzenegger movie. Conan the barbarian argues that his god is strong, strong on his mountain. But his companion, who worships the four winds, says his own god is greater. “He is the everlasting sky. Your god lives underneath him.”
Indeed. I disbelieve in the objective reality of any and all supernatural beings, and I disbelieve in the objective truth of any and all ethical systems.
However, I’ve realized one thing: I can’t chose my own reality, but I can choose my own ethics. And indeed, my subjectively chosen ethics happen to overlap a lot with other people’s ethics, because they’re based on the same instincts and culturally taught “values” as those of other people. And I even get to argue about what’s right and wrong, because once you share some ethical precepts, you can argue about their consequences.
I have to clarify my position here. I will claim that my ethical statements are entirely free of metaphysical assumptions and instead just reflect my personal ethics, or logical consequences of those ethics. Or, you could say that my metaphysical assumption is that ethics are relative, that there is no “objective” ethics. Saying that I care about “humans” is just a simplification of my own ethical views and ethical feelings.
Now, why did I say “duty”? it’s a duty that arises as a logical consequence not only from my ethical system, but from any system where people care about the consequences of their actions.
If you believe that, “if doing this is likely to make bad things happen, then doing this is bad”, according to your own arbitrary definition of “bad”, then the duty to judge the people and gods whose commandments you follow is a logical consequence of your ethics. Because if you don’t, you are taking the big risk that you end up following orders that lead to things that you will consider bad. And that’s “doing something that is likely to make bad things happen”, and therefore “bad”.
If you defer to a being that is bad by your subjective, finite standards, then the results will be bad by your subjective, finite standards. And if your subjective, finite ethical standards allow for you to knowingly cause things to happen that are bad according to your own subjective, finite ethical standards, there is something hypocritical about that. Which may or may not be wrong according to your own subjective, finite ethical standards.
“All right," said Susan. “I’m not stupid. You’re saying humans need… fantasies to make life bearable.”
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
“Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—”
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
“So we can believe the big ones?”
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
“They’re not the same at all!”
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
“Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point—”
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
`While that’s certainly a metaphysical problem, I don’t think it requires a spiritual or mystical solution. There are some founding axioms required for any ethical system, and there are a variety of ethicists who have made attempts of varying success at rationally justifying their chosen axioms.
Answering “why is suffering bad?” (for example) with “because God says so” is certainly no more convincing than any of the secular arguments; it just shifts the question to “what grounds do we have to believe in God’s moral authority on this question?”.
Again, I’m going to suggest that this is not aimed at atheists/agnostics, but at the faithful who have family members who are atheist/agnostic. It’s meant as a message to them that their families are not lost in the afterlife.
I think there might be some more categories than that. For example, if you look at Ps 104 you don’t see God as interventionist (God of the gaps) it just says that he is responsible for all the “natural” things that happen. This isn’t to say the Bible doesn’t also depict interruptions to the normal course of events, but it resists the idea that God is only to be found in the miraculous. On another level, the whole show is an act of God.
Well I really appreciate that attitude, it’s rare and laudable. But where to start? Well the idea I mentioned above is pretty big in the Bible – continually assumed even when it’s not articulated – but that makes it hard to pin down reading recommendations. Nevertheless…
The first eight chapters of Proverbs might be interesting for you. On one level, these are just advice to a young person on how to live well. Yet these maxims/generalisations draw on the notion that there are deep structures in the world that derive from God and his character. They also speak as if God is actively working through these patterns. So when you (say) cheat or steal and it comes back on you, this is both a “natural” consequence (like karma/tao/logos), and a personal act of God.
In the chapters just mentioned, we also see “wisdom” cast as a person. This is a complex emerging theme in Judaism – aspects of God’s character and activity are anthropomorphised. But for Christians, this becomes literally true. Jesus is the living bridge or word that joins the created order to God. He is a dynamic expression of God (like a Word or radiance) by whom God sustains the universe. If you want to get a sense of this then you could read the first chapters of Hebrews, Colossians and John’s Gospel.
(Just in passing, Jesus is really the epistemological key-stone for most Christians. We believe the rest of it because we believe in him. That means that a good place to begin any self-education woud be a Gospel. John is my favourite; many other like the brevity and directness of Mark)
It certainly includes that, but it’s the presence of God’s Spirit/breath (same word in Hebrew) in humanity that seems to be the life-force. It might be clearer in the light of the creation story in Gen 2:7.
Thanks again, Wanderfound.
I might let you have the last word here, but I have enjoyed the interraction. All the best.
