(I place myself in the materialist model. I am not interested in the dead end that is apophaticism, because of vocational habit)
I will use apophaticism in the sense of not speaking (at all).
It’s difficult for me to know where to start, as these are so dependent. Everyone has their own axis of perception which largely defines the model they use to evaluate and understand their world.
I chose to start from the principle that everyone seeks their own happiness. If this is not the case for you, take it as an axiom, perhaps you will agree with my later theses and then it will be your starting point in my journey.
So everyone looking for their own happiness, it is useful for them to know what contributes to this happiness and what takes them away from it. If by chance he is the source of his own happiness and can invoke it as he wishes (happy person), he will only have one worry: to live.
On the other hand, if his happiness depends on external factors, he will have to try to control his context. As this can only be done through one’s senses, we understand the difficulty of such an adventure. If humans can have access to basic truths, it is impossible for them to “perfectly” know their exterior. Facing this observation we have two paths.
Apophatism, if I cannot know, why talk about it (of God for example), why try to understand (choice in Buddhism, to not waste time).
The other way is to accept error, imperfection and to create models which allow us, in their respective validity fields, to represent the world. The dynamic consists of an improvement of the models, generally enabled by the previous models. It is the choice of science. For example, I believe we can say that relativistic mechanics is an extrapolation of general mechanics. The first, even if more precise, has not supplanted the second which remains the most used.
Models from science are often the most valid, because they are based on repeatable experiments and ‘until proven otherwise’. The methodology seems to give a universal character to the models it generates. Most certainly, science could be applied to all creation (without the connotation of creator). However, our lack of detailed knowledge strongly limits the field of validity of science. At most, we can express a probability when it comes to inter-individual relationships. As for what is the result of coincidence, what is not repeatable, that escapes science.
And again we have the same choice to make: ignore the unscientific, or look for a model.
In the panoply of non-scientific models (this qualification comes from our point of view, because ultimately science is not at the origin of the first models), there is faith with religion which is its expression.
And I think we follow the same process. Series of experiences over which we want to master and therefore for which we will seek an explanation. It will be astrology, animalism, gods similar to men. We have no choice: we rely on current knowledge, we modify it using the operators offered to us by the brain (association, analysis, extrapolation, augmented vision… see Gestalt)
Yes, man invented gods and God. But this is not an argument to assert that they/He does not exist. We invented the atom (which is not that much ‘atom’), we invented aliens and we are now scanning space in search of them… Man is obliged to construct concepts to work with the unknown , which he will be able to learn about later. Mendeleev predicted properties of atoms that he did not yet know, using his classification.
But, are these empirical models operational? No doubt less universal in space and time, but certainly they serve. It is enough to take the arguments of agnostics who explain through modern science what religions already used millennia before: not eating pork, circumcision, [I lack of arguments, if you are so inclined]…
Another gateway perhaps is to want to know better the rules of the game that is life.
Our ‘self’ is in front of a black box/castle, which it discovers little by little: the body, the immediate surroundings, the family, etc. Science sheds light on a large part of it, but there remain experiences that it does not really explain, else than calling them coincidences.
This is the crossroads. A very large number of possible models. The one I use now fits with my experiences. It is still in its raw state because it is quite recent in certain aspects. I am materialist (with respect to humans), evolutionist (all-round, from the molecules that become alive, to the brain of each individual, including the behavioural dominant of a society). I prioritize science over faith/religion. To be my culture, I took the Christian model although I do not believe that Jesus is God.
Why do I prefer the evolutionary model over the creationist model?
Some believe that God created Adam and from his side Eve. In the biblical culture of the time there is no evolution. Mutations are the fruit of sin and cannot create filiation (the mutation dies with the mutant).
So man has always looked the way he does and so has woman. We deduce from this that God did not make man with reproduction ability. But then why do men have nipples?
And I stop at this argument knowing that there are many others, far better (like the internal incompatibility of the Genesis stories).
If we are looking for a truth we can remain a creationist and defend the historical veracity of the biblical stories, but if we are looking for a model which describes what we observe today, we can only prefer the evolutionary model.
I think the Genesis stories take old stories and adapt them to the new culture and faith.
We can imagine a story where Eve the first woman gave birth from one of her ribs.
But this should not please the macho people who would prefer that a man be at the origin of humanity. A style account of Jupiter’s thigh. Since it would be difficult to explain how Adam gives birth to a child, we use a ‘deus ex machina’. And that’s it, the woman is indebted to the man…
The evolutionary model is more credible. Male sexualization requires testosterone while female sexualization does not require hormones. The male comes from the female and he keeps traces of it which have not disappeared (yet or because they are useful): the nipples are produced before sexual differentiation.
Is the Bible discredited for this?
Yes if we consider that the inspiration of the texts is divine in the sense that what is written is the pure textual truth. In the New Testament, ancient writings suggest that the disciples believed that the end of times was within a few years at most (1Th 4:17). The inspiration is therefore not of this order. I think it’s more like a muse. The text is inspired in that it speaks of God, of an experience with Him, of the implications that we see there.
But don’t panic, God wrote a book with his own hand: creation. And science strives to read it as universally/objectively as possible. And it gives us new (although older) answers to some of our concerns.
For example, life and/including death.
At least for the first Jews, God was the source of life, through his breath which animates Adam and makes him different in nature from animals. And life is good. To die is to end life and therefore to undo the work of God. This could not have come from Him, so an explanation had to be found, sin. So killing or killing oneself is an offence to God.
Now the Catholic Church confesses our animal parentage. In addition, with the New Testament, death is no longer the end of life, because there is resurrection. Animals existed before man and would die before man sinned. Death is a tool of evolution, which man inherits.
I deduce from this that the death of man is part of the path of creation and therefore originates from God (directly or not). If killing to get rid of someone you don’t love remains a sin, giving your life (suicide) for love of others can contribute to the work of God, the salvation of the world. This is what Jesus did.
Personally I would go further, killing someone (who has the permanent desire) for love is a good thing, if not for the after-effects that it can cause. For this we could imagine a chain of suicidal people who kill before being killed in turn. In addition, it could facilitate organ donation, a less violent suicide (for everyone).
Life is not sacred, it is just a state of inanimate matter. I do not believe that there is an ontological difference between a stone and an animal, only a different assembly of different atoms.