1. INTRODUCTION The need
designing gods to humans appears to be associated with a teleological principle inherent in our constitution as thinking individuals provided with animal mind [1]. Teleology concerns causality and the physical world we live in we can clearly distinguish a number of events that only see cable as a result of other events which he served as a cause. Failure to understand the ultimate causes of our existence has led us to suggest hypotheses through which we can try to explain why we're here and live in this world . This essay attempts to sort and summarize theistic hypotheses in large areas of understanding, so as to align them to a non-theistic hypothesis, where we accept the complexity of the existential question rationally and chooses not to accept incomplete answers - and probably untrue - - to answer it.
2. The HEART OF THIS ARGUMENT
The philosophical insight that brought me here came from the finding that the major theistic assumptions already embedded in our society can be classified into three major theoretical common trunks. Such trunks incorporate and summarize in a broad context the ideas theistic most often reached by man in relation to metaphysics - to try to explain what are the causes of its existence, ending also a consideration of beauty (aesthetica) on the order of the universe or some entity that is suppose organizer of this order. Divided into three major branches that theological and teleological:
or (ii) the god of nature (or living) (NBD) or bioteísmo
(iii) God in all things (DTC) or pantheism
is worth noting that in principle such hypotheses often accept a theistic teleological view of the world, ie the world as a result of a sentient life energy that acts as cause of it. This seems to be directly causal inheritance associated with the use of teleology - that our species has used to understand the physical phenomena of the natural world - when applied to the sphere of metaphysics. The ideas of God therefore consist in the basic metaphysical teleological or metaphysical teleologies . In fact, our mind seems to have some difficulty in overcoming this causal instinct primal instinct this obviously important during our evolution and certainly physically incorporated (hardwired) in our genetic codes and brain primates. Having noticed that this causal logic answers many questions about the physical world, we see it now epistemic basis of explanation in any doubt that affects, such as (a) our own existence and (b) the existence of the physical world with which interact.
Sometimes, however, the ideas of God can not be directly associated with a teleological principle. On these occasions, the metaphysical ideas about a god are mainly associated to an aesthetic principle of beauty or wonder of which we are incomprehensible. These forces emanate from somewhere, point or concentration of energy that is considered to be divine and beautiful at the deepest level imaginable. The prayers can be seen as well as rituals of thanksgiving for the beauty and wonder of the world and our lives. While antropoteísmos are more issues related to causal-teleological, it seems that most of bioteísmos pantheism and are more attached to this idea of \u200b\u200bwonder before the unexplainable - not necessarily seeks explanation or ultimate causes. Of course, this wonder is also often associated with a god or several gods in human form that controls (m) everything rationally, as also the idea of \u200b\u200bgod to various types of pantheism bioteísmos and may terminate any type of energy center controller whose shape or physique is irrelevant. In this sense approaches the pantheism bioteísmo, isolating the direct current antropoteísmo divergent. Atheism here refuses to provide any testimony teleological, assuming his ignorance before this concept and also refuses to assume any form rallying to close and summarize the beauty of the physical world. The atheist is often a fond of beauty and of course, but does not attempt to answer these problems and accept ignorance given the complexity. What matters here is that beside the causal sense (teleological) while theistic explanation, there is invariably the aesthetic and theological views often contain teleological motivation (cause), aesthetic (beauty) and epistemic (misunderstanding).
The theological idea prevalent in the last two thousand years has been the idea antropoteísta suggesting that God can be best represented by its similarity to the man, who in fact is seen by the faithful so Conversely, as the man having been created in the image and likeness god. According to Christians, a supposed man of flesh-and-bone (Jesus Christ) would have represented the incarnation of God on Earth, or alternatively there is the classical view of God as a bearded old man. Both ideas can be used as examples to represent such a theological vision of the world, centered on the human species (antropoteísmo).
3. ANTROPOTEÍSMO
Although some have since antiquity had been cherished for a glimpse atheistic, it appears that (i) to deny causal inferences about our own existence would need before (ii) take-mo us a central view with respect our role and the ultimate reason for the creation of the cosmos. This view contrary to our ultimate destiny in the order of the universe (anthropocentrism) was severely repressed by a Western culture and Christian heritage "God in man" who always portrayed as power stations, masters and referees of all events happening in the universe [2] . Thus the myth of a personal God antropoteísta was created in our image and likeness, inverted mirror of Narcissus myth when applied to human beings living in society. The
antropoteístas justify it by saying that life can not be "all that" and that it is necessary that our lives have some kind of larger meaning than being "just" everyday life, a wake and sleep, work and raise children. To deny their animal nature and the man they see as the ultimate destiny of the creation of the universe. The greatest motivation in relation to our lives, teleological question, is the existence of an individual super-wise to have created and governed the order of the universe we taking this to its ultimate goal.
Interestingly, the antropoteístas readily accept the explanation of a god in human form to have created the entire universe, arguing that the universe could not have arisen "alone" or "the complete accident." On the other hand it is interesting to note the fact they do not question the fact that his God has arisen in the same way "alone" or "random". For antropoteístas, the universe needs a cause, which is god in human form, sentient and conscious of his creation and his work. The cause of the existence of God but is never questioned and thus the existence of God seems not to need to be explained, while the existence of the universe need.This observation is clearly a paradox or a conceptual limitation of antropoteísta of theological knowledge, he follows an argumentative logic to some extent, then chooses to abandon it. There seems to be necessary to have a super-god God has created. The universe needs an explanation for its beginning and can not have always existed, god must have created it. On the other hand, God needs no explanation for his appearance and may have always existed. The logic applied to God, therefore, is different from the logic applied to the rest of the universe. If the universe is so complex and incomprehensible, and if he needs have been created by god, the god who created that would also prove to be so complex and incomprehensible? This question is not made by antropoteísta that God sees in her an ultimate reason for existence, so the universe requires a causal explanation for their beginning, but God does not need. Such argumentative failure is never seen or even acknowledged by antropoteísmo.
3.1. The Solipsism AS EXCESS OF ARGUMENT ANTROPOTEÍSTA
The reductio ad absurdum of the idea of \u200b\u200bDNH can be described as the philosophical theory known as solipsism . In this philosophical system, only the very thoughtful man who philosophize Guy would be the only Master of the Universe and the world would spin around himself, taking his life as the ultimate purpose of existence of all things. I believe that solipsism can be seen as the argument over narcissist who sees God in man. This is because solipsism is, in fact in a particular case of this philosophy that has God in man, and it suggests that God is on one man in particular: the individual who philosophize. It is as if the whole universe had been created only for the life of an individual, extreme narcissism and megalomania than that, however, can never be refuted logically or empirically. While it is clear that the metaphysical view-based solipsism represents an excessive exaggeration of argument DNH means solipsism that has the ability to turn a specific theological system for the simple fact that theological systems are social systems and involve many men. Thus, one could argue that not just Descartes there had been, as one might imagine that any individual could be placed as well as the ultimate cause of the universe as the French philosopher born in the sixteenth century. If we shift the center of the universe to another, the internal logic solipsist is sinking and all the solipsism is bound to be a theological system of individual members, each one of their own, different and unique self-sect. Thus, theism "God in the individual" (DNI), might never have good acceptance in society philosophers or theologians of the time, having been seen simply as some kind of ego or megalomania. If however we extend the solipsism of the individual for a supposed species of solipsism arrived at our first theological idea of \u200b\u200bGod: the idea of \u200b\u200ba God that is in man (Homo sapiens ) and nowhere outside it. The antropoteísmo is without any doubt, an anthropocentrism.
The philosophical view known as solipsism can be understood as the excess of the idea of \u200b\u200bGod in man (antropoteísmo) and consists in the vision of God in the individual who professes belief (self-test). In teleological view solipsist, all the universe and all things and people around were just someone created just to justify the life of one individual who reflects all that is false or unreasonable. However Solipsism is logically bound to be a philosophy of a single individual and can never become a social theology.
3.2. The SOCIOTEÍSMO AS PRAGMATIC ANTROPOTEÍSTA
Inside the ideas of God as man, have in general the idea that our species, namely humans, was made in the image and likeness of a generating principle of cause and beauty in the universe. All humans could thus be considered final causes for the creation the entire universe. The exaggeration of argument antropoteísta, as we saw earlier, consists of a single individual (DNI), considered the ultimate cause for the existence of the universe. Although the argument antropoteísta classic has all the human species as causal organizing center and motivation for the creation of the universe, in practice there are different types of existing antropoteísmos. Due to historical factors operating upon the formation of theological idea in different locations around the world, it seems that the idea antropoteísta arose independently in different peoples and cultures. Thus, there are different types of beliefs that exist in our society that have basically the same guidelines in considering a single omnipotent god who is this causal principle and the aesthetic world, be reasonable with strict similarities with humans. In fact, theism is the official antropoteísmo more often professed by the peoples of the world, highlighting the fact that man sees himself rather as the center of the universe and that our species is highly anthropocentric and narcissistic. Christianity, Judaism and Islam think of ourselves as the ultimate reason for the whole cosmos. Such
antropoteísmos could theoretically be compatible with each other and form a mono-wide framework that antropoteísta consider all the gods in human form are one god, the Great Architect of the Cosmos. What happens in practice, however, is that cultures also make their gods in the image of themselves as cultural ideologies - and thus the European Christian god has the same characteristics of the Arab Muslim god, even if the theologies themselves are quite similar in its philosophical broader. What happened has happened and, therefore, in practice the evolution of religions antropoteístas is the creation of an intermediary concept of antropoteísmos. God is no longer in all human beings, but only those who believe in God with certain form and certain specific characteristics. No matter what the theological principle is the same antropoteísta between Jews and Muslims, some characteristics (physical, moral, aesthetic, ideological) of the gods are different, and part to a new intermediary that goes between the theological idea of \u200b\u200bGod in the individual ( UT) and God in kind (DNH), is the idea of \u200b\u200bGod in a certain society, or god has "chosen". Thus, different societies have different and incompatible gods. And now they guerrearão together to prove that their god is One God and that other religions are wrong to think that God is their It must be unique and one, creator of all life and the universe.
It must be stressed therefore that the idea "God in our society" (DNS) is what occurs in practice with antropoteísmos arisen independently in several different human cultures. In fact, the mono-antropoteísticos different systems exist, such as: (a) Christianity, (b) Judaism, (c) incur Islam precisely this question. The god of all is the man - what characterizes them as antropoteísmos - however, it is only in some men, namely those who believe that their god is the god of all humans and the lord and arbiter the whole cosmos. Any questions about the dogma of god they believe is the correct god, or the only one, it is therefore heresy and negation of his whole philosophical movement. The great monotheistic encountered in our societies preferred to say that every god of their society (DNS) was the true god and the god of companies around were false gods. It might have been better to religious institutions that they had admitted the possibility of God being in antropoteística man but this single supreme god was the same both for Christians and for Jews or Muslims. In fact, between adherents of those religions is fairly easy to find individuals who think so. But due to differences in sacred books or differences in cultural and moral vision of the great god, besides the sense of God being responsible for the salvation of one people (as was always the God of the Jews), the great monotheistic religions leaders preferred to argue that only their god was right to declare war on the gods of religions antropoteísticas competitors and causing major religious disagreements that persist today and are great sources of political tension in the contemporary world.
3.3. The ANTROPOTEÍSMO CHRISTIAN
For Christianity, and according to passages of the holy book the Bible, man was created in the image and likeness of God. The Catholic God therefore has a human image, usually described in the form of a bearded old man. A man of great wisdom would thus have produced an entire universe of great size, complexity and beauty that only for certain special individuals - human beings - created in His image and likeness, inhabit it, grow and multiply themselves by spreading their word and its name for their land [3]. One of the major tenets of Catholicism is precisely this idea that God must be in man and be like him in thought, and ethical manner. On the day of Judgement, God will judge men based on the actions they took over their lives and their sins, and Abraham received from God the Ten Commandments that are presented as a guide larger Judeo-Christian ethic that men can be brought to heaven when the Day of Judgement final. Even Jesus Christ more clearly, presented and represented God on earth, trying to enforce a beautiful ethics he preached unity and brotherhood of human beings - but only those who believed in God. Not seem to care if indeed the church itself follows this ethic, which certainly did not during the Middle Ages, a period also known as dark ages, where Catholic church used all his power to reject any thought that goes against their most basic tenets, taxing them of heresy and force people to recant or die burned or hanged by the Inquisition tribunal . Will be judged as the Catholic clergy who made up these arbitrary courts in doomsday? There is an antithesis to the Christian philosophy within Christianity itself that is seen most often associated with a political system than a theistic system. Also the sale of indulgences made by clerics try it and knowledgeable about the scriptures, as Martin Luther's revolt and was asked greater religious liberalism, and returning to a humanist ethics within Christianity. Luther was the first to translate the Bible - from Latin to German - bringing the word of God's people. This was seen as absurd and insulting to the clerics of that time believed that the word of God was only for the chosen and that the people could not interpret the Gospels as well. Thus, in most of our mature Western Christian culture, free thinking was considered impure and wrong, where there was an extreme intellectual indoctrination towards the vision of God in man, and this current anthropocentric and antropoteísta simply rejected many metaphysical views competitors in one of the clearest examples of human history of memetic selection [4]. The great American theologian and anthropologist Joseph Campbell describes a case in which I once met a high-caste priest of the Catholic Church. On this occasion, he would have asked if Campbell was a Christian, and not to respond, quickly pointed out that the cleric could really be no doubt about a god in human form . Campbell says that's largely illuminated by understanding certain theological questions - and their experience certainly influenced this essay.
3.4. SYMBOLOGIES ANTROPOTEÍSTAS
Interestingly, the antropoteísmos are usually characterized by sexist ideals, where God is a man, and not a woman. In the Bible, for example, it is well known that man is first created in the image and likeness of God and only then comes the woman, created from a rib of Adam. For much of the tradition of the Catholic church, the great nobles have always wanted to firstborn men, who could inherit his fortune and their feuds. Women - nuns - has always been delegated a smaller place in Catholic theology and the same can be seen in other antropoteísmos, where the woman takes a submissive role in relation to man. The contempt with respect to woman within the antropoteísmos resonates today in the constitution of our society, although it seems that in the last century have left behind much of that prejudice against them.
Another division that is made is between the belief theisms single (monotheistic ) and those of multiple faiths ( polytheism) with respect to the creator of the universe. With respect to anthropocentrism, we have Christianity, Judaism and Islam are to explicit monotheistic faiths, each one believing in a god himself and that is largely opposed to the god of other religions anthropocentric. In relation, therefore, the social sphere and the possible identity of a group, these religions were those who first separated according to ideological contexts and have become enemy of each other classically, although it is clear that Judaism and Christianity can live in peace because they a common past divided after the alleged appearance of Christ to the Christian messiah and mere individual to the Jew. Next to that thought antropoteísmos see the polytheists, as were those present in ancient Greece and Rome. Such anthropocentric polytheisms also had some root monotheistic, since often there is the presence of a greater god Zeus or Jupiter. politicians tend to approach the man's relationship with the divine, and usually many gods can be enchanted by real human beings and generate semi-gods, which are of divine lineage, but were conceived by women of flesh and bone. It is also thought often that politicians have a real content of the near certainty less than monotheistic. So the policies are usually interpreted by humans as largely mythical, otherwise the monotheisms are often seen as the only and ultimate truth, impossible challenge.
4. BIOTEÍSMOS
Beside antropoteísmos, I have the impression that the next degree of understanding of the scale of human theisms can be described with what I call bioteísmo. The bioteísmos consider that the essence of logic by which there has been a reason for this world, is in living beings or nature. Instead therefore of anthropocentrism who cherish the man, bioteísmos appreciate the natural beauty and, therefore, is the view usually taken as true for the majority of Indian tribes. The Indian can be seen here as the true essence of man as animal and as the state of closeness between man and nature. (In fact, one can even propose that anthropocentrism has arisen just after a certain urbanization of society and that its dawn occurred largely due to a desire - or even by a very natural action of the new urban humans - just to differentiate itself from humans living still in the jungle or savannah.) The bioteísmos therefore never seem to have been directly formalized as systems of beliefs, it makes no sense according to their ideologies. For fans of various aspects bioteístas, the issue of magic and divine light would be exactly in contact with nature, with life and with the animals and plants. Religious ecstasy of bioteísmo is leaving for a journey where there is only the individual and nature, normally in the absence of other human beings. Alternatively, religious ecstasies bioteístas can usually be achieved through the aid of drugs obtained directly from plants or animals that raise awareness and enable a closer approximation of human beings with a natural voice, with its roots as animal and as a living creature. Religions Amazon Santo Daime and Uniao do Vegetal (UDV) seem to have exactly this kind of mystical view of nature.
In addition, the blockbuster "Avatar, directed by James Cameron presents to viewers the people Navi, Indians who have a number of links with bioteísta ideal. In this case, the god of the Indians is Eywa, or Gaia, a type of entity that represents all life on earth. Also in the same direction, the people ship sets a specific organ that allows them to connect directly with the natural essence of various animals - which also had the same body.
Another factor often associated with vision bioteísta is that it contains a vision of feminist theology, where the ideal of protecting the mother is in primase avenging his father's authoritarianism. The mother is the one who gives, where he is born, is who cares and who loves you. Is it that represents where we came from while being part of us, and we are part of who we are and we should respect it in all its assignments. There bioteísmos us a sense of unity, love and compassion between individuals not only of the sect, but also with respect to all living organisms and entities "natural."
also in ancient Greece can still see traces of an indigenous bioteísmo, in which the pre-Socratic thinkers try to individualize the gods in nature. Thales of Miletus, the first known philosopher of modern times suggested throughout this transition from polytheism to monotheism and to bioteísmo antropoteísmo, that water was the essence of all things, provoking the first split between a specific theology of the senses to try to produce a theology of reason. The vision of Tales was immediately questioned by Anaxímedes also at Miletus, who was opposed to the predominance of water in supposing that the element that brought together all things and ideas was the air.
The highest grossing film in movie history is curiously a work where the theological idea is the ideal bioteísta where God is in nature, and not just (or particularly) in man. For individuals of this species ship, the essence and ultimate cause of life on earth is shared by all living individuals who can communicate in a special way, through a particular organ. All life is seen as interactions between organisms and a feeling of a super eco-ecosystem mystic is observed, emphasizing a unity between what is alive.
Regarding the evolution of beliefs, it seems to me that the beliefs held by the first human being should have been some kind of bioteísmo of indigenous origin, where the Indians venerated natural entities, animals, plants, sun, the earth and water. It seems to me also that the turning point of the biota for antropoteísmos just started at the age of reason that the primase appears to have begun with the Greeks. The pre-Socratic philosophers in attempting to formalize some sort of bioteísmo as did Tales and Anaxímedes, ended up creating some kind of monotheism, transferring the complexity bioteísta God's natural elements that closed the main features of the universe. Western thought has always been north to search for basic principles, simplifying the complexity of the world way too much (analytical capacity in a Kantian sense) and creating knowledge that can be useful and provide information characteristic of epistemic legitimate. What the precursors of our Western culture is that they forget the real world is absurdly complex and diverse than the concepts we create to comprehend it. The divide and conquer and epistemological dichotomy of the concepts and the world (with inheritance in Anaximander) was certainly something that made humans were able to increasingly understand natural phenomena, on pain of losing a more comprehensive and integrated whole as one that probably teem animals, although not seem able to formalize concepts accurately, probably understand and interact with the world so perhaps richer and fuller.
5. PANTHEISM
Chain following solipsism, and antropoteísmo bioteísmo, we decided to call it here in pantheism. Pantheism would like to consider this God in all things, including inanimate objects industrialized. Pantheism holds the idea that all things have some kind of energy and that energy can be conserved not only in living beings or natural elements, but also in all sorts of objects. I do not know any formalization of pantheism and believe that it works more as a metaphysics of the individual who respects and appreciates the ethical and moral to all of the things that as a true type of any religion. The pantheist has love and wonder with all things, believes there is a mystical energy both in nature and human or technological equipment.
6.
ATHEISM Atheism is the denial of the theological currents described above. In fact, atheism can be understood as a rejection of the mythologizing of metaphysics. It is worth noting that the individual who chooses to follow this philosophical movement is not necessarily someone who does not share the love of the nature or humans. There is also an atheist, someone who does not wonder given the complexity of the universe, nature, man or whatever you think.
Atheist can be more clearly identified as an individual who recognizes the complexity of the world and the universe and denies any kind of mythology to represent what is not understood very well. Usually those who profess this religion- does because of this perception of failure in any other theoretical model of metaphysical beliefs. Considering the insoluble metaphysical problems, the atheist would prefer to deny the truthfulness of existing systems and accept your ignorance with regard to such issues. It is interesting to note that the denial of any formal system of beliefs is usually seen as disrespectful by those who profess any kind of religion, although, for example, the antropoteístas collide, they are usually united against anyone who questions the veracity and principles of any religion. This is due to the fact that (i) not to cherish especially not the man or nature and all things, (ii) the atheist gives the impression of being a person without any moral or ethical values, ie a pure selfish. This statement is false and though there are countless examples of individuals who have a profound atheistic humanist and ecological. Atheism, therefore, does not imply a lack of ethics, or lack of wonder, it is simply to deny any kind of metaphysical explanation explicit since neither can be defended based on empirical or logical. In fact, the atheist could argue that its not comply in one or another strand primase probably allows better assessment of the social balance among all things that man has to preserve: the self, the environment and the cosmos.
7. CONCLUSION
This post tries to be an introduction to the framework of theistic philosophies to broader conceptual frameworks. It is certainly not definitive and does not exhaust several points of discussion on the matter, quite the contrary. It seems that it opens and assembles these conceptual frameworks from which new theoretical elocubrações may come to be unveiled - along with empirical studies, semiotic and pragmatic with regard to the different major belief systems.
In a large number of senses, I believe that teem antropoteísmos been much more damaging to the development of our society that the world would be in case the privilegiássemos bioteísmos. The contemporary crisis and searching for an immediate development that will never be sustained, and we have increasingly destroyed the planet we live on, upsetting this balance that exists in the tenuous natural world and that can lead us - very soon - the environmental disasters large scale. It is true that the human years, over the past centuries, has been responsible for an immense destruction of habitat and the extinction of countless species. Not to mention the killing of human beings themselves who have different beliefs, as happened at the time of the Inquisition and what happens today in the war between the conservative American Christians and Arab Islamists. So far the policy to deny and fight against the other seems to be paying off. Turning to environmental issues, the great planetary ecosystem (Gaia) will take a while to realize the great damage we have caused to him and seek a new way to find a homeostatic stability characteristic of the natural elements. To our misfortune, however, is quite possible that this new equilibrium will not allow us to live as we have lived throughout our evolutionary history and society. The idea that man can control the environment has allowed us to develop our science and technology, but at some point these enterprises may not be enough to save us from our own greed and imbalance in the environment that we are producing. Maybe if we opened the documents of Vatican still worried about some documents with the growth of natural and even if theisms clearly ruled against several principles highlighted in the work by Cameron's Avatar.
==
8. NOTES
[1] Please do not confuse you here with theological le ológico. Theology is the study of the gods and the belief or religious practice. Teleology is the study of the principle of causality, purpose or goal, where events happen because they are derived from certain causes that have resulted. The argument here is that the theology that arises from the application of metaphysical teleology purposes. The man, trying to explain the teleological question of its existence in this universe created large groups of theologies I come here to argue about: antropoteísmo, bioteísmo, and pantheism (negative) atheism.
[2] About anthropocentrism several texts have been published in this same blog that show how we have thought of central within a supposedly pre-allocation of the universe and how these views have been gradually driven back by the advance of scientific knowledge. Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin were some of the great harbingers of a vision that brings man out of the center and puts us in our proper place, ie as an animal species living on a planet that is far from the center of the universe. To learn more please click here , here, here, here , here, here or here.
[3] No wonder that with the fact that, having as much power as to create an entire universe with thousands of stars and suns and living organisms, God has not bothered to make all humans believe in Him and him alone. The omnipotence of God is limited in some sense - for example he can not stop all the injustices of the world, but judge individuals on doomsday - which only suggests more about the religious mystery of the mind of God - - that the fund is fully comparable to the mystery of human life. In antropoteísmos, Therefore, when the idea of \u200b\u200bgod man parallels the idea of \u200b\u200bman himself.
[4] Memes are called cultural replicators. The term "meme" was coined by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in his masterpiece "The Selfish Gene." Perceived as simple or complex ideas of ideas (memeplexes), it is speculated that memes evolve as it genes in genomes. Memes that are related to different ideas can work together to grow their memeplex while competing memetic alleles on a single idea - the existential response - competing with each other and the strongest survives and wins the war of ideas. With respect to existential response, the meme antropoteísmo defeated and killed by long survival machines - human individuals - who had a different view on the same site memetic (ie, the theological idea). Thus, the court of the Inquisition did not allow individuals to present alternative views on the existential response to survive. They were hanged or burned as pagans, heretics or witches. Even today there are plenty of religious prejudice towards those who profess other kinds of theology.
[5] The ideas of God here must be understood as: (i) the idea of \u200b\u200baesthetic wonder and mystery, (ii) the idea of \u200b\u200bthe cause, (iii) the idea of \u200b\u200bincomprehensibility the world and society.
===
Inspirations and possible conflicts of interest : This posting was indirectly influenced by Bioteísmo song, composed by this blogger for his band Explanatory Gap, along with Renato Malcher and Thoronto. In turn, the music was indirectly influenced - among other things - the film Avatar, James Cameron and the readings from the work of Joseph Campbell. The author of this essay is a biologist and agnostic, he does not believe that the universe need to have a cause, although I can not understand what would be the lack of time or causality.
