Avatar-Philosophy (and -Religion) or FAITHEISM
()
About this ebook
Related to Avatar-Philosophy (and -Religion) or FAITHEISM
Related ebooks
Oracular Operations Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsJames Cameron's Story of Science Fiction Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Legend of Buffalostar: Memories of a Lost World Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Prometheus Design Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Secret History of Extraterrestrials: Advanced Technology and the Coming New Race Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Black Rift (Star Crusades Nexus, Book 9) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Lost Alien Artifact Trilogy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCovert Wars and Clash of Civilizations: UFOs, Oligarchs and Space Secrecy Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Printed People: Elektra, #1 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Punch Escrow Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Under Roswell Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGreat Stories of Space Travel Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsInspiration Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsStrange encounters from the Beyond (beings from other Realities, Dimensions and Multiverses) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFlights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Infinite Tortoise: The Curious Thought Experiments of History's Great Thinkers Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTiny Time Machine: The Complete Trilogy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEpiphany Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAlternative Realities Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFictional Science Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsImprint of Blood: Birth of the Rim, #1 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBounded Rationality the Encryption: Humanity's Death Wish Comes Close to Fulfilment Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTwilight Visitor Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSkylight Dying Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThey Know, You Don't! Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The 100 Best Movies about Aliens and Extraterrestrial Life Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSpace Travel: A Science Fiction Writer's Guide Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Oort Federation: To the Stars: The Second Oort Chronicle Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIcicle: A Tensor Matrix: The First Oort Chronicle Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOur Occulted History: Do the Global Elite Conceal Ancient Aliens? Rating: 1 out of 5 stars1/5
Atheism For You
The God Delusion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Is Atheism Dead? Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5May the Farce be with You: A Lighthearted Look at Why God Does Not Exist Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Everybody Is Wrong About God Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Satanic Narratives - A Modern Satanic Bible Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5We of Little Faith: Why I Stopped Pretending to Believe (and Maybe You Should Too) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsUnveiled: How the West Empowers Radical Muslims Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Thou Shalt Not Believe Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Why I Am Not a Christian and What I Believe (Warbler Classics Annotated Edition) Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament: The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, #1 Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament: The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, #2 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDid Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5American Crusade: How the Supreme Court Is Weaponizing Religious Freedom Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Giving Up God: Resurrecting a Spirituality of Love and Wonder Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThere Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Summary of The God Delusion: by Richard Dawkins | Includes Analysis Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Flying With the Spaghetti Monster; the Pastafarian Handbook Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Crossing Over: One Woman's Escape from Amish Life Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Relax, It's Just God: How and Why to Talk to Kids About Religion When You're Not Religious Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Answering Atheism And Agnosticism Series (Answering Bertrand Russell) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSeven Types of Atheism Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for Avatar-Philosophy (and -Religion) or FAITHEISM
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Avatar-Philosophy (and -Religion) or FAITHEISM - Edmond Wright
faith?
Just what is an Avatar?
The Hindus do have a right to claim the first use of the word. ‘Avatar’ as a word derives from the Sanskrit ‘ava’, down, and ‘tarati’, he crosses over. It is used of the highest god, Vishnu, who temporarily takes over a human body on earth, to create a godlike being, Krishna, who performs tasks on his behalf; he has come down and crossed over into the sublunary realm. It is obviously what we would call an ‘incarnation’, literally in the flesh, because we note the match with ‘God the Father’ who sent his son Christ to carry out his mission in the lower world. What is central to the meaning is the notion of the controller remaining in the upper world and the body in the lower carrying out his desired actions at one remove. Incarnation is a topic to which we shall return.
This relationship of control at one remove has in our time been humbly reproduced on various occasions as an outcome of our new-found electronic wizardry. Steve Moulton, a Philco engineer in the US, describes the strange experience he had when he tried on a ‘TV-hood’ over his eyes, the input to the screen of which came from a camera at the top of a building he was in (he was on the ground floor). The camera was so arranged that it moved from right to left, scanning the landscape around, exactly in accordance with the sideways movements of his head. A weird effect was produced by this matching of movement, which Moulton called ‘creepy’: he could not escape having the sensation of being up in the tower in the position of the camera looking around at the landscape. It was an avatar-experience at a minimal level (for the details, see Daniel Dennett, 1983, 24–1).
In experiments at University College, London, and the Catalan Institute of Research and Advanced Studies, Mel Slater, an investigator in this field, has been testing the effect of wearing virtual reality headsets.[1] He has been able to show that men who wore virtual reality headsets that gave them the impression that they were occupying a female body were unable, while wearing them, to shake off the perceptual impression that they had such a body. The impression, of course, stopped as soon as the headsets were removed.
My philosophy tutor at Oxford, Gareth Evans, was also intrigued by the idea of experience at one remove. In his book The Varieties of Reference (Evans, 1982, 166–70), he imagines, specifically in order to explore the notion of reference to spatial position, a naval operative inside a ship who is in control of a submarine device that is exploring the sea-bed. He compares him to ‘the experienced driver of a mechanical excavator’, who, I am sure you can recognize already, is another, if partial, avatar (the driver is still using his own eyes). The naval operative, however, is not using his eyes underwater: he has an indirect access to the scene on the sea-bed by means of a television camera. The submarine ‘is equipped with limbs, excavators, etc., and a means of propulsion remotely controllable by the subject’ (p. 166). He suggests that, if the operative were to be ‘insulated from the sounds, smells, sights and so on around him’, that is, in the ship, he could ‘play’ at being where the submarine is. Evans is still disinclined to allow him to conceive of his ‘here’ as being on the sea-bed, but, with our having read Dennett’s account, we would allow him to think of two here’s—on the sea-bed and in the ship, depending on how he is playing, that is, with consideration for what is relevant in the context of speech to someone else. Evans goes on to say that the operative might even think to himself ‘I’ll pick up that rock’—and that thought turns him into a minimal avatar. If you have lost something down a crevice, and you poke around with a stick, you will have the ‘play’ sensation of feeling with the end of the stick.
I myself, as a philosopher of mind, took the scenario one stage further, one that brings the situation nearer to the human one. I envisaged a set-up in which there were two operatives, each equipped with his own elaborate device, and they were having to discuss with each other over the phone—as they were not together—precisely what it was they were dealing with. I imagined them as bomb-disposers, which made it essential that, in sending their devices out to an unfamiliar bomb (a safe distance away), they could inspect it and discuss the details of what it was they were ‘seeing’ as they attempted to dismantle it.[2] The Dennett Effect I took to be working for both of them, but, as you can readily understand, they kept being faced with problems of identifying exactly what it was they were dealing with. I gave a sample of a possible conversation, and it becomes plain that both are quite happy to talk as if they are present at the bomb, and one’s corrections of the other— since he has a different perspective on what is going on—prove useful. They are, in fact, playing a dangerous guessing-game with the real world that lies in front of the cameras, and their individual guesses have to be subject to mutual correction if they are to be successful. As part of my larger argument, I maintain that this gets close to the actual process in human language, which I here shall claim to be a sort of double-avatar state of affairs.
Since they are both uncertain, they have to trust each other about what they are actually referring to, and this is where faith enters the picture. It is plain that both of them are working on the assumption that their further aims are the same. Faith will be our concern over the next few pages, but you must allow an atheist to lead you by a roundabout way through the wood, one that leads right back past Krishna and Christ to an explanation of how the myth of avatarhood has relevance for us at this time in history.
1 The Guardian, 12/05/2010; originally in the web journal PLoS One, URL: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010564
2 For the full account see Wright, 2005, Chapter 3, part 6.
So what is Faith?
In their best-selling books, what the atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michel Onfray neglect, for all their palpable (and entertaining) hits on organized religion, is what faith is when it is divested of the trappings of belief in the divine. They have been fazed by the way organized religion has monopolized the word—and, consequently, and unwisely, they neglect the human virtue itself. Faith for Dawkins