Heaven and Infantilism

HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Heaven and Infantilism

Something totus_tuus brought up in another thread bothered me a little. I didn't realize there was such an infantile idea of heaven in (I'm guessing) Catholicism:

totus_tuus wrote:

[heaven is] Creation restored to the state it was meant to be

This is difficult to take seriously. The context of the statement is a discussion on the "fall of man", from the Garden of Eden. I'd present that story as a metaphorical coming-of-age myth. It fairly clearly presents the infant (in Eden) learning (eating from the tree of knowledge) and growing up. There are lots of myths from other cultures just like it. totus was describing heaven, and what happens in heaven, that being "Creation restored to the state it was meant to be".

Where would this come from? Well we ALL want our infantile state back! When you were a baby, you could be as much of an asshole as you wanted, and you were completely loved. It's no surprise, then, that heaven is the ultimate depiction of a real-life Garden of Eden, that being the infantile state. Who wouldn't want to go back to that?

But that's a very real stage in life, so it's no surprise that we would create the wishful thinking that we could be returned to that state, while all of our enemies were taken to a place of eternal trauma (that which brought us out of the infantile state in the first place).

 

 

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Who wouldn't want to

Quote:

Who wouldn't want to go back to that?

Me.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:Who

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Who wouldn't want to go back to that?

Me.

Why is that? Do you remember it being unpleasant?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Why is that? Do you

Quote:

Why is that? Do you remember it being unpleasant?

No. Very active neuroplasticity in infancy is the reason it is impossible to retain memories of that period, so the question is rather meaningless. I just rather enjoy my mental faculties.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't. Setting aside

I wouldn't. Setting aside the fact that much of who I am is a result of the lessons learned and travails encountered in leaving that stage of my life, there's also the fact that along with that lack of responsibility is a lack of agency. You can be as much of an asshole as you like because, in the end, your prickishness is largely harmless and impotent. You affect nothing. You have no control. You cannot make any real decisions affecting your existence.

Fuck that.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Experiment

HisWillness wrote:

Why is that? Do you remember it being unpleasant?

Why don't you try shitting and pissing in your pants for a few days and tell us if you feel any unpleasantness.

 

But you have a point, religion is for people that want a sugar daddy, people that don't want to take responsibility for their lives. They'd rather leave it all in the hands for their daddy and not take responsibility for their own well being and happiness.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The most glaring problem

The most glaring problem with it is that God's omnipotent, so things are precisely the way they were meant to be.  If they were meant to be anything else, either God is not omnipotent, or he's got split personality disorder.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:The most

Hambydammit wrote:

The most glaring problem with it is that God's omnipotent, so things are precisely the way they were meant to be.  If they were meant to be anything else, either God is not omnipotent, or he's got split personality disorder.

I myself favor the idea that if there is a God, he's insane. It fits the observable data and makes the testable prediction that life will continue to be a mixture of good times and bad times so foul only a sadist would inflict them on others, while the faithful will continue to claim it's all a sign of God's universal love. I mean, really, everything points to a megalomaniac with a fragile ego and a vindictive streak a galaxy wide. Eye-wink

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:Why

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Why is that? Do you remember it being unpleasant?

No. Very active neuroplasticity in infancy is the reason it is impossible to retain memories of that period, so the question is rather meaningless. I just rather enjoy my mental faculties.

... I'm guessing this is the difference between believers and non-believers (though it's a bit of a stretch). I couldn't stand childhood. Not because of anything particularly unpleasant in my case either, just that I was uncoordinated and generally extremely limited. Being an adult, on the other hand, is the greatest. You can do whatever the hell you want as long as you're prepared to deal with the consequenses. Children don't get to do anything they want to do. It's like being in jail.

But freedom is frightening, and that may be the mechanism that drives theism: giving up a deity would be like giving up the notion of constant, loving, parental supervision. That may appeal to someone who would actually sign up for being a kid again.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:[...] there's

BMcD wrote:

[...] there's also the fact that along with that lack of responsibility is a lack of agency. [...]

Fuck that.

Oh, absolutely. Even a trivial example, like deciding I'd like to have some ice cream, is out of a child's hands.

I usually have to do a lot of explaining when I say I'd never want to be a child again. I'm glad it's quickly understood here.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:HisWillness

EXC wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Why is that? Do you remember it being unpleasant?

Why don't you try shitting and pissing in your pants for a few days and tell us if you feel any unpleasantness.

Uh, sure, okay ... waitaminit! You're trying to trick me, aren't you?

HisWillness wrote:
But you have a point, religion is for people that want a sugar daddy, people that don't want to take responsibility for their lives. They'd rather leave it all in the hands for their daddy and not take responsibility for their own well being and happiness.

That's exactly the idea that jumps out at me. The theist seems to need a parental point of reference even in the absence of a real (or adequate) parent. So how does it happen that atheists reject that mechanism of the mind?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:The most

Hambydammit wrote:

The most glaring problem with it is that God's omnipotent, so things are precisely the way they were meant to be.

Well that's ALWAYS a bit of a problem with the God concept, but yes, the idea that heaven will somehow be the real version, the way things are "supposed" to be, is a bit confusing. But like I said before, the idea of taking anything in the bible as anything but fiction makes it a bit confusing.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence