Reminds me of the quip that those who talk to god are devout while those who think god talks to them are crazy.
Which reminds me of a case in Canada some 17 years ago:
BBC: A man who beheaded a fellow bus passenger in Canada in 2008 has spoken out for the first time, saying he believed he was killing an alien.
In an interview with a schizophrenia society, Vince Weiguang Li said he had heard what he believed was "the voice of God" before killing Tim McLean, 22.
🙂 Indeed. Though been ages since I read it, probably during the heydays of New Atheism and Dawkins' "God Delusion" -- circa 1995?
Apropos of which, you may not have run across "No need of that hypothesis". "Which refers to French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace's famous, possibly apocryphal, reply to Napoleon, stating he didn't need the "hypothesis of God" in his celestial mechanics because his equations explained the universe's workings through natural laws, not divine intervention, highlighting science's shift to reason and observation over faith-based explanations for natural phenomena." [courtesy of Google's AI, Gemini].
While that hypothesis may not have much use in celestial mechanics, I kind think there is still some merit and use for it in much wider spheres. Not quite sure of the connection, but Dawkins, in that book of his, referred to:
Wikipedia: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is a 1976 book by the Princeton psychologist, psychohistorian[a] and consciousness theorist Julian Jaynes (1920–1997). It explores the nature of consciousness – particularly "the ability to introspect" – and its evolution in ancient human history. Jaynes proposes that consciousness is a learned behavior rooted in language and culture rather than being innate.
Arguably, consciousness arises -- as per the Sistine Chapel (?) painting of Jehovah reaching out to Adam -- on being touched -- ensouled -- by the finger of god. So to speak. 🙂
The proverbial "hard problem of consciousness" that may benefit from that "hypothesis":
Reminds me of the quip that those who talk to god are devout while those who think god talks to them are crazy.
Which reminds me of a case in Canada some 17 years ago:
BBC: A man who beheaded a fellow bus passenger in Canada in 2008 has spoken out for the first time, saying he believed he was killing an alien.
In an interview with a schizophrenia society, Vince Weiguang Li said he had heard what he believed was "the voice of God" before killing Tim McLean, 22.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18170463
Several other high-profile cases of Muslims doing the same thing.
An excellent point!
Thanks. 🙂 Reminds me of a book that, ICYMI, you might have some interest in, Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God.
Seem to recollect that she had been a nun.
Ooh interesting!
🙂 Indeed. Though been ages since I read it, probably during the heydays of New Atheism and Dawkins' "God Delusion" -- circa 1995?
Apropos of which, you may not have run across "No need of that hypothesis". "Which refers to French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace's famous, possibly apocryphal, reply to Napoleon, stating he didn't need the "hypothesis of God" in his celestial mechanics because his equations explained the universe's workings through natural laws, not divine intervention, highlighting science's shift to reason and observation over faith-based explanations for natural phenomena." [courtesy of Google's AI, Gemini].
While that hypothesis may not have much use in celestial mechanics, I kind think there is still some merit and use for it in much wider spheres. Not quite sure of the connection, but Dawkins, in that book of his, referred to:
Wikipedia: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is a 1976 book by the Princeton psychologist, psychohistorian[a] and consciousness theorist Julian Jaynes (1920–1997). It explores the nature of consciousness – particularly "the ability to introspect" – and its evolution in ancient human history. Jaynes proposes that consciousness is a learned behavior rooted in language and culture rather than being innate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
Arguably, consciousness arises -- as per the Sistine Chapel (?) painting of Jehovah reaching out to Adam -- on being touched -- ensouled -- by the finger of god. So to speak. 🙂
The proverbial "hard problem of consciousness" that may benefit from that "hypothesis":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
So powerful! Thank you, Julian. I needed to read this today.
Thank you <3
Yes, nonsense is often murky.
Thanks for commenting!
Out of curiosity, why do you say that the idea of hearing from God is nonsense?
(sidenote: love your username. The Cinesexual!)