Religion will win in the end.
Religion is like opium. Too much opium can leave one dead in a ditch, but just the right amount can return function to the pain-crippled. I wouldn't say that this is hard and fast rule, but I've come to expect it: religious people handle adversity better than atheists, and I think it's because of the functionality-returning gift of anesthesia.
It may be difficult to follow my non-linear thinking here, but this is why the things that have really advanced atheism are not logical arguments. It's penicillin, knowledge about cholera, vaccines, and the like. Medicine makes people a little less dependent on the opium of religion than they were, say 100 years ago when death was a pretty common feature of the average person's life year after year.
If it's true that cultural development waxes and wanes, then the medical establishment we now enjoy will eventually disappear, dependence on religion will return and atheism will be eclipsed (again).
So what's your prediction?
It may be difficult to follow my non-linear thinking here, but this is why the things that have really advanced atheism are not logical arguments. It's penicillin, knowledge about cholera, vaccines, and the like. Medicine makes people a little less dependent on the opium of religion than they were, say 100 years ago when death was a pretty common feature of the average person's life year after year.
If it's true that cultural development waxes and wanes, then the medical establishment we now enjoy will eventually disappear, dependence on religion will return and atheism will be eclipsed (again).
So what's your prediction?
Comments (309)
Too much religion will leave one dead in ditch?
So basically, to get rid of "religion" is to get rid of an integral part of the human psyche. It is not going to happen unless or until there is metamorphosis of sorts, probably when we all go extinct or something.
Agreed. Hedonism is and will be modernity's favorite new religion.
I still think, however, that there is something profoundly different between religion and science, because the scientific method, though ritualistic, calls for constant revision of observations and prevents an established dogma of facts to become sacrosanct. The Big Bang doesn’t ask me to rid my mind of all impurity so that its seed can blossom fully in the soil of my soul, and nothing I do can profane it's name. Although it is true that I rely more on faith in a scientific authority than on scientific beliefs, no single conclusion of science is essential to me. Only the scientific method itself is essential, this endless parade of hypotheses, all calling for my mind’s favor and none demanding my heart’s obedience.
Quoting Wayfarer
When I took Latin in high school salvo meant "sustain", more or less. So, salvation would entail whatever might be permanently sustained, such as, in the Christian tradition, one's lower being residing within God after death, for example - this predicated by faith whilst living, of course. In this sense you can see why the bodily flesh, technology, or mere human ingenuity can become God-like constructs, "things" that can be thought to sustain pleasure, life, notions of progress, etc.
It might also be a good place to recall the two derivations given for the word 'religion' when I studied comparative religion: the first, 'religio', attitude of awe and piety towards the Gods (Latin); the second, 'religare', from the root 'ligare', to join, meaning, to 're-join' or 'bind'. Similar in meaning to the Hindu 'yoga' meaning 'yolk or join'.
It's always a good idea to go back to the original text from which Marx's "opiate of the masses" came:
Hence the apparently high levels of religiosity pre 19th C are a distortion caused by state enforcement of religion. Similarly the apparently high levels of atheism in the Soviet Union were a distortion caused by the reverse phenomenon.
I expect that, in the absence of coercion, the religious will be religious and the non-religious won't. Because of the natural wide variation in human psychologies, I expect neither group would drop below 25% of the population, and the split would vary within that range according to fashion and circumstance.
..because through the Glorious Revolution, the workers will create Heaven on Earth, and have no further need of the imaginary Heaven of religion.
But the quote helps frame my point. I don't think the conditions that require illusion are ever going away...not for long anyway. Agree?
You have a very small worldview. If you want to talk about medicine, three million people die from vaccine-preventable diseases each year, child mortality in the tens of millions from poverty and hunger. Then you have millions upon millions dying in the Middle East.
Counter that with the millions of people who are still delusional enough to believe that competing with one another on Instagram somehow equates to superiority and self-worth. #hedonism where the sane start to appear insane to the masses.
When you broaden your worldview, all you see are vicious idiots everywhere. It is not religion that is the problem. It is humanity. We are cancer.
Religion thrives on the fear of "dead in a ditch". It transforms fear into hope for the faithful, for a life of bliss, a fetishized hope for eternal life. The faithful transubstantiate enduring present suffering as a means of achieving future bliss, this transubstantiation becomes the structure of the self.
The atheist does not escape this process, it became the structural bias of the future over the present in Western culture which is incorporated into our concept of progress. While the atheist does not have a transcendent escape route, it has science which it relies on to save it from suffering.
"Ditch" is an interesting word, it can mean a trench carved into the ground, or something we discard, or throw away, or an escape. A ditch almost like a wound to the earth as demonstrated in Maya Lin's Vietnam War Memorial, where the discarded names of the dead, enable our sentimental escape from their horrible realities.
All the same, irreligiosity has existed for not much more than a few generations in Europe, such that the dyed-in-the-wool non- or anti-religious atheist appears mostly as a creature born of post-Christian Western decadence and the rise of positivism (though I realize this does not make his or her position incorrect). At the moment, Europeans are not having enough children to maintain their expensive welfare programs and so have decided to accept massive numbers of immigrants, who are both religious and fertile. In East Asia, there are many atheists too, but unlike their European counterparts, they are still religious (usually following aspects of Buddhism, Taoism, and various indigenous religions). Hence, atheism need not be equated with irreligiosity.
Well, perhaps salus is better as a word from which "salvation" is derived, which is to say "safety." So, believe in Jesus and you'll be safe in the after-life, or saved from Satan or sin or whatever naughty things all good Christians deplore. I prefer, though, to think of it as derived from Salve, a Latin greeting, which can be translated I'd think as "Hello!". Such a happy thought. So "salvation" would be the state of being able to say something along the lines of "Hi, Jesus!", as one would be a friend, a pal, of the Lord. Salve Regina is of course a Marianist hymn to his mother as queen of heaven.
Which of course is why religion will win. Everybody wants to be "a friend of Jesus" just as everybody wanted to be "a friend of Caesar."
You would think that, ideally, science would operate like this. But this is not really what happens. Established paradigms are pushed as dogma and alternative theories are not given their fair time. It isn't until an overwhelming amount of evidence, usually, that the scientific community will change its mind. A paradigm shift.
And further, although it is true that the "scientific method" (whatever that actually is...) is basically superior in most respects to straight-up religion, it nevertheless satisfies the need for ritual and the sacred, not just for the practitioners but the general public as well. Seriously, go take a look at some of the trending and bestselling books on science, especially physics and biology. The authors are falling over themselves attempting to show how "physics can set us free" or how "mathematics is the 'poetry' of reality" or the "greatest show on earth" or some incoherent lame-ass shallow bullshit. They have their head so far up their assholes with the belief that because they are scientists makes them qualified to publish their own shitty philosophical ideas as dogma. More often than not it's basically just self-help "look how beautiful the universe is! wow!" rhetoric that nauseates me to no end.
There is a recurring idea that scientists "know everything", or at least know a lot more than we common folk do. It's true, they do know more than the average person does in regards to their field. But my own experience and study of the history of science leads me to believe that scientists actually know more about the history of models than reality tout court.
It's hilarious to watch the mind gymnastics of those who claim to be superior in rationality and logic try to justify why they basically worship science in the way they do. There is no justification for the belief it will solve all our problems, and in fact there is a lot going against that idea. The "awe" and "wonder" one feels when doing science (or more likely, while looking at photoshopped pictures of dust clouds in space) is not "scientific" by any means and is the same thing the religious person feels, that "spiritual connection" with the One, the Absolute, the Singularity or whatever the hell you're into. The new trend, it seems, is to replace God with purple nebulae. m'kay.
Assuming my experience is not so far removed from the average, it looks as though science is an attempt at impartial and rational inquiry that either primarily or as an important byproduct satisfies religious needs: a community of like-minded individuals (ones' associates of fellow scientists), an emotional desire for the transcendent (the future apotheosis of human knowledge), ritualistic behavior meant to guarantee some consequence (the "scientific method"), spiritual leaders of knowledge (public scientists themselves), crusades of sorts (Age of Exploration, Space Race, nuclear power, medicine against diseases especially cancer, environmentalism, etc) that are prophecies for a future free of suffering and death (a "secular theodicy").
The point I'm making is not that science is bad, per se. Regardless of how effective science is, it nevertheless is not the product of our collective "unshackling" of religion - it's just another manifestation of this psychological need for religion. Without this need, science as we know it probably wouldn't even exist.
But being a friend of Caesar isn't the same as being a "friend" of Jesus.
You've stepped into rather deep water, there.
How many "excess deaths" do you think there are?
The world death rate is 100% -- and has been for a long time. Of course there are people dying in the middle east. As well there should be; it's over populated, like much of the world. And in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, and South America people are also dying--millions upon millions. Do you realize that in our species' history, BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of people have died?
You'll be sounding like Carl Sagan, before long. "Billions and billions..."
Oh, come now. Take a laxative and calm down.
Other than your pseudo-philosophical drivel do you have any evidence of this? And I don't mean your opinion on the matter, I mean a peer review scientific article.
I can't help but wonder what "or something" refers to, here.
Then you don't really have anything at all. Your whole argument hinges on that one conclusion, and if you can't establish in some meaningful way then you really have nothing at all. To be honest it is very sloppy "philosophy".
Don't care, everyone and their dog thinks they have special insight, but people also suffer from observational bias, which means they tend to see what they are looking for. This is why I ask for data, instead of opinions. Also I can tell you right now that your experience does not meet the standards of a fair representative sample of theists or atheists.
The "or something" is a cocktail party. Possible offer of a chocolate martini on the table as junior's name has already been changed to "donor" in the medical records.
I suspect Jesus never had a friend, really. At least, we never hear of one, though it's claimed he "loved" John--according to John, in any case. It seems he was fond of Lazarus, however. I suspect the many Caesars had friends, though very few.
You seem bitter. But a chocolate martini? There's no accounting for the taste of an atheist, it seems.
I'll admit PICU personnel aren't particularly romantic about such things, as you probably aren't about the content of your job.
If you have dealings with real idiots, or whatever politically correct designation one gives to the less intellectual amongst us, they tend to be less vicious and more loving. It's the intelligent that are vicious.
We're back to counting corpses again, to see who is the gooder thinker. If the insight is clear, the parasite is transformed into a symbiote. This is the magic of thought, that where biology must laboriously evolve, thought can change instantly.
I am fairly certain I already did. My view is that your view needs more support.
Research has been done into the relative success that the religious and non-religious people have in coping with adversity, prolonged stress, serious illness, and so on. I wasn't able to lay my hands on a specific reference just now.
If my memory (and common sense) serve me, the differences are not altogether unambiguous. For one thing, not all religiosity is the same, and not all ir-religiosity is the same, either. Some factors that might make a difference are not religious in nature. Supportive friends, for instance, make a difference. Ones psychological make up, quite apart from religion, has something to do with how well or poorly we cope with trouble.
Quoting Mongrel
Parents standing by the bedside of their dying child (parent, spouse, dearest friend...) might be coping with the awful inevitability confronting them by displaying levity. Fatal illness and death can take a long time, and after months of being the pillar of strength and support, one might well give way to frivolous chatter.
There isn't any master narrative that defines how people should deal with the appalling misery of life. Mostly, we learn how to suffer and witness suffering through "on the job training".
What could be more romantic than the practice of law?
I've no idea what you're going on about, now.
Makes sense. I did say in the OP that I don't hold it to be a hard and fast rule that religious people have better coping skills. It's really just something I noticed along the way. I think of what Victor Frankl said about the power of meaning. He created a meaning for his suffering while in a concentration camp. There was nothing religious about it.
Religion, by providing ritual, community, ties with ancestors, etc. provides a ready-made framework in which to find meaning in events. True?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sure. What I was meant was that people who confided to me that they were atheists (usually after the offer of a chaplain to stand with them) tended to seem a little vacant. They had checked out. Totally understandable.
Pirate.
Your standard for evidence is pathetically low.
Yes, I think that's true. The problem that the ir-a-anti-non-un-religious have is composing a narrative without the gods to account for, and provide meaning to, the ghastly events that disrupt or end lives. I think it's a tough assignment to produce a de novo narrative that both explains the horrors of life and at the same time provides comfort to the survivors.
If one can't come up with a narrative (like, if one lacks knowledge of various religious and philosophical themes) then one is going to face the cold wind blowing from the future [The Stranger, Camus] without so much as a tissue of protection.
A well-read atheist could, for instance, turn to Ecclesiastes and read that there is a time to live and a time to die. The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Time and chance govern our lives. We are grieved, but we are the survivors. A live dog is better than a dead lion.
To lose a child (a spouse, a parent...) and be unable to place the loss in a larger context has to be chilling and caustic.
Calling your argument "fundamental" does not change the fact that your standard for evidence is pathetically low.
So Mongrel hasn't provided decent evidence that religion helps. Maybe her standards for evidence are low, but what kind of evidence would you accept?
We can look at surveys, we can look at long lists of anecdotal reports, and narratives that testify to the benefits of religious belief in times of disaster. It's something, but it's hear-say. There probably isn't any "proof" one way or the other. No brain scans, no blood tests, no behavioral observations or measurements.
For many, most?, religious people, "religion" is deeply integrated into their personality. It can't be pulled out as a single, measurable factor. It is the strength of the individual that gives faith the power to comfort them, rather than the other way around.
My own belief about religious relief is that many (most?) people get through disasters (or don't) on the strength of their personalities, and that religious comfort is, if not incidental, not the critical factor. Indeed, believing in prayer and divine intervention and then having one's children die must surely result in an additional burden of severe cognitive dissonance. "Why were my prayers not answered?" "Where was Jesus for my (son, daughter, father, mother, sister, brother, spouse...)?" "Why does God allow this to happen?"
On the other hand, some Nazis working at the Jewish killing pits in captured territory during the invasion of the USSR were humbled that, "The Jewish men walked to the pits like heroes."
The entire OP hinges on one claim, even as a rhetorical argument it fails horribly.
The thesis is: "dependence on religion will return and atheism will be eclipsed (again)."
Which is supposedly explained by: " religious people handle adversity better than atheists"
If you have no evidence to support your one and only claim, then at least attack it from different angles.
Quoting Bitter Crank
A statistical analysis would certainly be a good place to start.
*rolls eyes*
The working of logic isn't dependent on evidence.
Logic is not a magic wand you can wave and suddenly truth appears, it is a tool to help you in your considerations. Further more the OP is not employing logic; there is a differences between a rationalization and logic.
"Philosophy" is not an excuse to shrug off doing proper research, although I know many at these forums certainly treat it that way.
Quoting Jeremiah
There are enough atheists, certainly, to gather a large sample, and more than enough religious people. I would hope whoever has done, is doing, or will do this kind of analysis succeeds in defining exactly what they are measuring, because (as I said above) religion is part of their integrated personality. For atheists, whatever set of beliefs they hold are part of their integrated personalities.
I think it will be difficult to prove that believing or not believing makes a difference because it won't be possible to isolate belief (or no belief) as a measurable variable. It will be found to be tied in with too many other factors.
For instance, I count myself as a non-believer, but I was raised in a devout Protestant family and didn't reject belief in God until middle age (30 years ago). If I do well or badly in a crisis situation, to what part of my history can that be credited? Some people have never formally abjured their faith, but on close examination they don't seem to ever have seriously believed or practiced it. There are people who have deep beliefs about God's power, their own righteousness, and the power of prayer, but when they get sick they go to the doctor--right away. Is their good health a result of faith or prompt medical attention?
A statistical analysis could only show if there is a difference it could not prove the cause of that difference. As there is simply no way you can randomly assign beliefs to people. Without that type of random assignment it would be restricted to observational studies, which do not establish cause, but it would be a start.
I bet if Mongrel actually took the time and effort to look into it there are probably some relevant studies out there. Mongrel has a thesis the next step is to actually research that thesis.
Older adult males (50 -75 years) do much better, and live longer if they are involved with other people, have a spouse, are engaged in a community, and so on. One of the obvious ways of obtaining those benefits is to be involved in a church.
Single males (50-75) who are isolated, unengaged, live alone, shun community activities, and so forth, tend to be sicker and to die sooner than men who have a varied social life and close companion(s). I could very easily be one of those self-neglecting isolated old men.
I'm not a believer, but I am involved in a church. It was a ready-made community which I could plug into. It gives me a level of social contact (not very intense, but steady) that I would be hard-pressed to find elsewhere. The gay community used to be a source of social involvement for me, but that was decades ago. A socialist group was also a source of community, but that has given up the ghost. So, God help this atheist, it's the Lutheran Church. I'm grateful.
I rather read them for myself, than have you tell me about them. I am well aware that there are some studies out there, and have seen a few for myself but they generally leave a lot of room open for debate. I also would want to review their sampling methods and statistical procedures used.
Well, be my guest.
You are the one making claims about what they said without any citation at all, accept some responsibility.
I'd say religion itself is heavily responsible for that response. In its hierarchal concens, it teaches people itself is only source of meaning. The sort of "Nihilism" people is only the underlying religious approach to the world, that it is horrible and without meaning, shorn of the saving force or entity.
We might say that philosophy and religion in general is posioned by the Nihilism, by the idea our world is meaningless, so that we must find the transcedent force which turns into something worthwhile. Most are unwilling to teach life, itself, is meaningful because then people wouldn't need their tradition to matter.
From my perspective (agnostic soft-atheist), religion would be more of an existential party drug than a medicine. A cherry on-top. I already live with uncertainty and acceptance of death, and maybe that's because I have low standards or because I live in a time filled with so many interesting things that life without after-life is consolation enough, so what reason is there to perform the mental gymnastics required to get a few boons from religion with all the extra burden?
Granted, if humans go back to shitting out their intestines in ditches from cholera, people will certainly be wanting their opium back, but are you so sure back to the ditches is where we're immediately headed?
When the blow holes were forced back to the ocean, gills never made a comeback.
Wait, what alleviation from suffering does science even offer at all, to anyone?
Ah yes; thank the Almighty Lord Science for offering the alleviation of physical suffering, and for his bountiful blessings of Xanax for those sufferings we poor faithful are inflicted with that aren't quite as easy to define. But solely dependent, of course, on our health insurance. Thank the Lord for his daily blessings.
How about antibiotics then? Surely not requiring limb amputation or death alleviates suffering.
How about the combustion engine?
Electric heating?
Air conditioning?
Weather satellites?
If boredom is suffering, and using this forum alleviates it, then you can thank science for the design of the computer you use to do so!
Verily, we thank the Almighty Lord Science for all and every form of alleviation of physical suffering, and for all forms of ever increasing physical convenience that bring us closer and closer to our very Lord herself. For we consider these light and momentary afflictions as preparation for a weight of momentary glorious convenience and comfort before the inevitable extinguishment of our very existence. As we look not to the things that are unseen, but to the things THAT ARE SEEN. For the things that are unseen are IMAGINARY, but the things that are seen are, thank the fucking Lord, temporary.
Compared to the epic throes of such sarcastic existential neediness, what alleviation of suffering could there ever be?
My point is that religious folk are happy to accept all the boons of science just as atheists are. It's not as if we've jumped ship to science because if we were so inclined we could have both.
That we're not inclined toward religion or religious belief is what loosely defines us as atheists in the first place though.
[i]"Shit man, I was really enjoying this movie, but then I realized that it's gonna end eventually".
"Yea, totally... Without believing that it goes on forever, it's all stupid and meaningless".
"Pass the popcorn".[/i]
Do not suppose that I have come to bring sarcasm to the world. I did not come to bring sarcasm, but rather poetic analysis.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Verily, whoever does the will of my Father Lord Science, is my brother and sister and mother.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Verily, whoever believes in Lord Science is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned because they have not believed in the name of Lord Science's One And Only Son.
Charming.
Nevertheless, I have adequate daily intake of moral fibre, thank you very much.
You say this, but it overlooks something very important. And that is that people are not naturally disposed to recognising meaning or living free from anxiety and dread. That I take to be the existential meaning of 'the fall'.
Spiritual traditions do recognise there is something within you which can rise above that - there is a Buddhist tradition of the 'inherent great perfection', and analogous ideas in other sources. But it is understood to not be something which usually occurs spontaneously to people, it has to be sought out. That's the sense in which a spiritual discipline is a form of therapy - not in the narrow sense of treatment for a particular ailment, but for the general unease, dukka, of day to day life.
And again, in Buddhism, there is a recognition that the teaching ultimately doesn't matter, that once it has served that purpose, then it can be left behind. (This is the import of the well-known 'parable of the Raft'. Other traditions generally don't hold such a view.)
There is a saying from Jung, which I know will probably be controversial but bear in mind, Jung was no Christian apologist. But he did say
If I start sounding like Carl Sagan, than kudos to me. If others started sounding like Carl Sagan than there wouldn't be morons justifying the mass slaughter of innocent people by saying that the world death rate is 100%.
Wait, what?
Quoting Bitter Crank
:-|
Quoting Bitter Crank
Perhaps keep your psychopathic tendencies hidden under the rug, old horse.
Actually, I live by righteousness and not by pretending moral worthiness as part of my virtual social schema, nor do I appreciate the hostilities of those who have confidently lived an intellectual life without ever achieving anything morally worthy before projecting that intellectual viciousness out onto others. I live an intellectual life, studied law when I didn't want to, but most of all I dedicate myself to those fleeing from the 'corpses' of their loved ones. The numerical - albeit pithy - display is to satisfy the cancerous drones, not that it would make a difference.
And yes, I can be vicious, but never to justify my failures.
I didn't say "immediately."
Could you expand on this? O:)
Oops, word is out. Psychopathic.
So, what I was getting at was that there are not, to quote you,
Quoting TimeLine
who would not die in the normal course of events. There are thousands and thousands of people dying from violence (internecine* bombings and international bombings), aka "excess deaths", not millions and millions. There are various estimates, generally below 1,000,000, some way below 1,000,000.
It's helpful not to go overboard on estimates of deaths in the Middle East, just as it's helpful not to go overboard on terrorist deaths in Europe or the U.S.
*
Well, yes. But that's all.
Not much, really, beyond the fact that I think the Caesars probably had friends, though not many, being Caesars, and that Jesus as putative God probably had none, being God.
Ah, but to the extent living an intellectual life is related to law and corpses, you haven't lived a truly intellectual life until you practice law when you don't want to and have buried the corpses of your loved ones.
Are you saying that "belief in science" is incompatible with "belief in god"?
Are you a disbeliever in science then?
I don't have loved ones to bury, not for a very long time and what propelled me to an intellectual life despite my gender and appearances, hence why I spend time on places like this rather than entertain social networking en masse. And if I pursued the study of law for moral purposes, I did so for the utility to position myself in an adequately suitable profession in order fulfil that utility. I don't want to work in a low-paying job in the interest of this objective, but I do.
It is pretty self-explanatory. In the interest of provoking conversation, many people utilise various models of persuasion to justify vicious behavioural components only because they themselves are guilty of practicing such behaviour. The difference is that I am conscious of this intentional discourse and use it for objective rather than subjective purposes.
Are you talking to me or to you? I am not the one who said that people in the Middle East should die because of overpopulation. That is, well, going overboard on estimates no?
"Of course there are people dying in the middle east. As well there should be; it's over populated, like much of the world."
Oh, you know, like Dickens:
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Alas, I've been involved in the burial of loved ones, long ago and fairly recently, and have practiced law for longer than I'd care to admit. Although being an able lawyer requires a certain degree and kind of intelligence, though, I don't think it or what one does regarding the corpses of loved ones have much to do with living an intellectual life. This I'll admit was intended as the point of my little comment; a modest attempt at irony.
Could you provide an example of an exchange where this happens?
Who said anything about burial? I have been alone for most of my life and whilst I appreciate the modest attempt, my focus on the study of human rights law and supporting children and young people whose parents became those corpses in war has everything to do with living an intellectual life, since I decided - by choice due to my living an intellectual life - to commit myself to supporting them despite the many opportunities available to me. It is called moral consciousness.
But I will say that I am sorry for your losses.
Oh, how
I wish... I were
Holier
Than Thou
Run along...
I'm..running..as..I...speak...I...didn't...know...you...are...a...woman...and....I.....cannot......see........what.........difference.........it..........could.............possibly.............make :s
My point? Stay silent.
This is true. However, I'd still like an example, (Y)
Yeah, I'm determined to put those damned peripatetics in their place!
I agree with you that people should not be put into categories (at least not without their permission). I also agree that good women have no need of passivity or naivete. But I doubt anyone is morally conscious without a holy reason (speaking secularly, of course).
This old psychopomps horse just can't keep up with the dizzying complexity of it all.
No, I wasn't saying that. I was having some fun re-writing (and paraphrasing) bible verses with Science as the god.
Belief in science and God is of course possible, and belief is the right word here. Belief is a core component of thinking; I can't verify all scientific claims I hear about; not 100% of them. Not even a scientist can; a biologist probably takes what an astronomer says on belief. Or maybe, for fun he verifies it, but then next month he's too busy to verify someone else's astronomical claim, so he accepts it on belief. Certainly the average person accepts science simply with belief, not any verification of studies, let alone personal critical analysis of those studies. Science is truly, in a very deep sense, a belief system in this way. It's an entire system of claims which are often accepted without question. The problem is when this belief in science is assumed to be knowledge. There's quite simply too much information in the totality of the human experience for humans to not have belief. When you start thinking this way, the sheer amount of things we take solely on belief begins to become staggering. We believe in the news the same way (although not so much anymore. What's to become "fake" next, I wonder?).
Faith, on the other hand, is different. Paul Tillich describes faith as "ultimate concern". Humans have many concerns: social, political, scientific, religious, cognitive. Any can become the ultimate concern; any concern can become a faith. So,
"If [a concern] claims ultimacy it demands the total surrender of him who accepts this claim, and it promises total fulfillment even if all other claims have to be subjected to it or rejected in its name. If a national group makes the life and growth of the nation its ultimate concern, it demands that all other concerns, economic well-being, health and life, family, aesthetic and cognitive truth, justice and humanity, be sacrificed...Everything is centered in the only god, the nation - a god who certainly proves to be a demon, but who shows clearly the unconditional character of an ultimate concern."
"But it is not only the unconditional demand made by that which is one's ultimate concern, it is also the promise of ultimate fulfillment which is accepted in the act of faith. The content of this promise is not necessarily defined. It can be expressed in indefinite symbols or in concrete symbols which cannot be taken literally, like the "greatness" of one's nation in which one participates even if one has died for it, or the conquest of mankind by the "saving race", etc. In each of these cases it is "ultimate fulfillment" that is promised, and it is exclusion from such fulfillment which is threatened if the unconditional demand is not obeyed." (p1-2, Dynamics of Faith)
He goes on to describe how ultimate concern in something is faith:
"Faith as ultimate concern is an act of the total personality. It happens at the center of the personal life and includes all its elements. Faith is the most centered act of the human mind. It is not a movement of a special section or a special function of man's total being. They all are united in the act of faith...
This leads to the question of how faith as a personal, centered act is related to the rational structure of man's personality which is manifest in his meaningful language, in his ability to know the true and to do the good, in his sense of beauty and justice. All this, and not only his possibility to analyze, to calculate and to argue, makes him a rational being. But in spite of this larger concept of reason we must deny that man's essential nature is identical with the rational character of his mind. Man is able to decide for or against reason, he is able to create beyond reason or to destroy below reason. This power is the power of his self, the center of self-relatedness in which all elements of his being are united. Faith is not an act of any of his rational functions, as it is not an act of the unconscious, but it is an act in which both the rational and the nonrational elements of his being are transcended." (p. 5-6)
I think it's important to retain the word faith to emphasize the import and consequences of Tillich's concept. Anything can be an ultimate concern, looking at faith in this way. Scientific progress, for instance. Faith in science, then, is religious. Belief is not. But beliefs are a component of faith. Each of us has a faith which contains its requisite beliefs.
Work those pegs toward the lyceum. As I say in the gym. 'I squat, therefore I am.'
Nevertheless, I follow no religion, so what would be my holy reason?
I once encountered a lady who appeared to be a highly religious and thus apparently a moral person and as we were talking about charity, I noticed her insulting a particular ethnic group by claiming that their greediness is causing her distributive problems to the broader community. As I started explaining to her that her moral position is somewhat problematic considering that charity is not culture-specific, she immediately became defensive, to a point where she spoke over me and (since others were there) where I became 'third-person' as she spoke to others about me as an attempt to persuade others in the room that something must be wrong with me to justify her behavioral flaws. This intentional discourse was brought to a point where I was insulted. As others awkwardly listened on and as she shuffled about the kitchenette, being me, I quoted from her religious scriptures that confirmed my position and her moral failure point blank. There was nothing else she could say. She then started yelling before experiencing some 'hysteric' moment where she appeared to be fainting but not, having heart failure and paralysis and what not as Iattempted to calm her down knowing it to be superficially induced as her way to silence and win the argument and thus maintain her so-called moral superiority.
Defense mechanisms that subconsciously project false accusations in order to cope with the subjective emotions of guilt is very common, but I am conscious of it.
I'm skeptical of this claim.
I'm skeptical because I've made effort in life to over-apply doubt in hopes of eviscerating the requisite beliefs of faith. I cannot see that I have an ultimate concern beyond my own well-being, and faith characterized by offering "ultimate fulfillment" is not part of my personality.
If science was my faith a la Tillich, I would expect it to have ultimate fulfillment on offer, but It only seems to offer run of the mill fulfillment; the same kind you get if you build a house or sculpt some art. There are many scientific facts that we all tentatively accept as true without actually knowing ourselves (usually by appealing to authority) but the great thing about all scientific facts is that by definition they need to be testable and falsifiable; the deeper you get in to science the less you take on authority. Rather than transcending reason, scientific pursuit drags human psychology back down to a grounded level.
The scientist with the most scientific understanding, who we would expect to employ the most faith per science as a religious system, actually takes less on faith than anyone else.
Why?
Tillich also suggests that doubt is an integral part of faith:
"...faith is uncertain in so far as the infinite to which it is related is received by a finite being. This element of uncertainty in faith cannot be removed, it must be accepted. And the element in faith which accepts it is courage...If we try to describe the relation of faith and courage, we must use a larger concept of courage than that which is ordinarily used. Courage as an element of faith is the daring self-affirmation of one's own being in spite of the powers of "nonbeing" which are the heritage of everything finite. Where there there is daring and courage there is the possibility of failure. And in every act of faith this possibility is present. The risk must be taken. Whoever makes his nation his ultimate concern needs courage in order to maintain this concern." (p. 16-17).
"All this is sharply expressed in the relation of faith and doubt. If faith is understood as belief that something is true, doubt is incompatible with the act of faith. If faith is understood as being ultimately concerned, doubt is a necessary element in it. It is a consequence of the risk of faith." (p. 18, emphasis mine).
He also elaborates on another form of doubt, which reminds me of your "over-application" of doubt. Correct me if I'm wrong:
"There is another kind of doubt, which we could call skeptical in contrast to the scientific doubt which we could call methodological. The skeptical doubt is an attitude toward all the beliefs of man, from sense experiences to religious creeds. It is more an attitude than an assertion. For as an assertion it would conflict with itself. Even the assertion that there is no possible truth for man would be judged by the skeptical principle and could not stand as an assertion. Genuine skeptical doubt does not use the form of an assertion. It is an attitude of actually rejecting any certainty. Therefore, it can not be refuted logically. It does not transform its attitude into a proposition. Such an attitude necessarily leads either to despair or cynicism, or to both alternately. And often, if this alternative becomes intolerable, it leads to indifference and the attempt to develop an attitude of complete unconcern. But since man is that being who is essentially concerned about his being, such an escape finally breaks down. This is the dynamics of skeptical doubt. It has an awakening and liberating function, but it also can prevent the development of a centered personality. For personality is not possible without faith. The despair about truth by the skeptic shows that truth is still his infinite passion. The cynical superiority over every concrete truth shows that truth is still taken seriously and that the impact of the question of ultimate concern is strongly felt. The skeptic, so long as he is a serious skeptic, is not without faith, even though it has no concrete content." (p. 19-20, emphasis mine).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I agree.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is indeed great, but this seems to be exactly the point at which belief in science gets so confused with knowledge. Because the knowledge itself changes. Belief has to be strong to allow science to guide your thinking as the knowledge changes.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You're confusing faith with belief here, within Tillich's dichotomy. So, the scientist who has the most understanding we would expect to have an "ultimate concern" in science. But are you saying that he does not in fact have that ultimate concern, or simply that he has less beliefs contained in his faith because of his scientific knowledge?
"Faith" is a misrepresentation of trust, belief, values, ethics and knowledge in this context. Every philosophy, outlook or world view shares these aspects: that's an understanding of the world, of what's important, of what's needed, of how to live.
All the argument is really saying is: "everyone's postion is an understanding of how the world works and, for each position, those who hold it stick to it."
Those of faith just misread this feature as "faith" because they cannot imagine understanding, ethics, trust, knowledge or a way of life could be without partaking in faith.
That's not the argument Tillich makes. Faith isn't a representation or misrepresentation of trust, belief, values, ethics, and knowledge; it's the mechanism by which these things function. A philosophy, then, is a set of ideas and beliefs which are the product of the function of things like values, ethics, etc. So ontologically it goes faith -> functions/content (values, etc) -> philosophy. An optional 4th step is -> religion.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
The idea is that the mechanism of religious faith is the same mechanism that drives a secular way of thinking. So "secular faith" is a metaphor, but causally accurate, based on this view. Like I said earlier, the reason that it's important to retain the word faith is to emphasize the misunderstanding of faith versus secular thought. It's important to retain the word faith so as to underline the unity that underlies the two seemingly different ways of thinking. The other distinction that I've already made is that this is fundamentally different from the concept of belief. Like I said, belief is part of the content of faith, or one of it's functions.
The problem in bold is that I don't understand how my faith and I might relate to "the infinite". I can recall the feeling of doubting god from my religious childhood, but my belief in god has long since been crushed under the feet of doubt and my developing empirical/epistemological standards.
The only way I can frame that is that the faith went away.
Quoting Noble Dust
I understand that doubt is natural when someone is very concerned with the truth of something particular, but what happens when doubt wins and they discard that particular "truth" as a concern?
For me God has become a non-concern. I've rationalized it in hundreds of ways, example: if there is a God, he'll know what to do on my behalf, so I need not worry. (cheeky but effective).
Quoting Noble Dust
I over apply doubt but I don't suffocate in it. It's an attitude I apply rigorously, but I'm happy to yield before scattering my brains across the concrete. The trouble is it's not the robust concrete I contest.
The skepticism I employ is a way to test the robustness of new, existing, and competing "beliefs" out of a desire for "robust beliefs". Are robust beliefs my ultimate concern? Perhaps, but only because of the predictive power they offer. I want predictive power so I can more easily satisfy my immediate human wants and needs.
Quoting Noble Dust
Not all scientific knowledge changes. Some of it will be the same forever or the whole of it must come crashing down. Certain fundamental laws are so well established and understood that they simply will never be overturned. All future science must incorporate and expand our current understandings of those things which are undeniable realities.
Objects accelerate toward the earth at 9.81 (m/s^2) (around ground level) and we know the equation which describes that force (dependent upon the mass of the objects and the distance between them).
So we don't understand how gravity works, but any theory of gravity is going to need to offer some explanation of why the force of the earth's attraction on objects is what it is. It won't overturn or disprove the law of gravitational attraction, it will expand or explain it. The theories at the periphery of the established body of scientific knowledge do tend to change and sometimes frequently, but they are not well understood and established like some scientific facts.
Quoting Noble Dust
It's that he has less beliefs, (and therefore less faith?), but you and Tillich are the one's suggesting that there is some ultimate concern to be "faith'd" on in the first place...
Is a shoemaker's ultimate concern shoes? Is his faith in his shoes his religion?
Why need a scientist draw ultimate fulfillment from science?
Does everyone have a faith defined by whatever it is that they happen to get the most "fulfillment" from?
Faith in religion (God, and an afterlife) as a source of ultimate fulfillment makes sense, but "faith" in cinema or math or science as a source of ultimate fulfillment makes far less sense.
I fill life with as many small things as possible because I've given up on one ultimate or infinite source in this life or any possible next lives. Doubt, for me, is a very practical attitude because I expose myself to as much as possible in search of fulfillment in the long run; it's a way to halt un-robust (and therefore unfulfilling) beliefs (and other things) at the door and provokes an identity check.
The hunt for fulfillment is itself my ultimate concern.
To be clear, I also had a similar experience with religious upbringing, and have doubted belief in God to the point of agnosticism, but not to the point of atheism. To label myself at the moment would be hard. But to be clear, I'm just extrapolating Tillich's argument here, and toying with it myself, and inserting some of my own opinions on faith vs. belief, vs. doubt, etc.
I struggle with relation to the infinite as well, but I personally can't shake the concept. Maybe it's just the religious upbringing. But I've never been anything close to a materialist or physicalist, so a concept like the infinite has remained on my horizons almost out of necessity. Not because I believe in it per se, but because it seems to need to exist metaphysically and teleologically. But I think what Tillich might be saying there is that ultimate concern encounters doubt when the infinite (God, the greatness of the nation, the totality of knowledge or certainty, the arc of scientific discovery) is encountered by the finite person. So the encounter of the finite person with the infinite, the thing categorically beyond the finite person, is what causes doubt.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Again, I would argue with Tillich that you're conflating faith with belief.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Then the ultimate concern changes to something else.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It sounds to me like your ultimate concern is certainty. Or knowledge, or power, which all seem to be connected.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Did you mean to say "It's Truth as an ultimate concern"?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Not sure how faith can be a verb, but I guess I was more trying to point out that you were conflating belief and faith, which is a distinction I happen to agree with from Tillich. I suppose you don't accept that distinction though.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Obviously that's not Tillich's argument. A shoekmaker's ultimate concern might be his family (providing for them, etc). A scientists ultimate concern might be knowledge and certainty.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Even here, it seems to me that all this is very important to you (I don't mean to put words in your mouth), which suggests to me that things like halting un-robust beliefs are ways to get to a deeper ultimate concern.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And so making the hunt for it your ultimate concern seems to me like means with no ends, and another way of pointing at a deeper ultimate concern. If the hunt is significant, then it must have a referent; a reason for significance.
The label I wield for myself is "agnostic soft atheist". You're likely familiar with the way I use the term "agnostic" (I believe we don't have knowledge about god(s) or that such knowledge is impossible) but the term "atheist" is normally thought to mean "believes god does not exist", which is technically not true (although many [hard/strong/positive]atheists do hold such a belief). I simply lack belief in any god(s) without actually believing the inverse. I see no reason to accept anyone's claim that a particular god exists, but I don't then make presumptions about what must not exist as a result. Most self described atheists share this nuance:
Let the belief "a ball exists in my closet" be analogous to the belief "god exists".
Without any access to my closet whatsoever, are you willing to believe that there is indeed a ball there?
Would you be willing to believe that there is no ball in my closet?
If I were you, I would take no hard position either way. I would not believe there is a ball my closet, but I would also not believe there is no ball in my closet. This is soft-atheism. Agnosticism is it's rational progenitor. Hard-atheism, (the connotation that many erroneously apply to atheists at large) would be analogous to the belief that there is no ball in my closet.
I rest at ease knowing I have no access to God's equivalent of my closet. I recommend such a stance highly because it simplifies the overall scope of possible things to be concerned about in the first place, and I assume that belief either way would have no ramifications in some possible hereafter.
Quoting Noble Dust
They reliably get me the things I tend to want.
Quoting Noble Dust
Sorry, I had to re-edit after realizing that I posted the wrong tab (which contained an unedited post). I was going to make the point that "truth" as an ultimate concern is a difficult comparison to make to belief in god or faith around religion because "truth" is a concern of all beliefs, including the religious.. I removed it though because I didn't think it was central to our discussion.
Quoting Noble Dust
I think the distinction is somewhat ethereal. Tillich's analysis applies readily to religion and religious belief (faith as a product of ultimate concern) because religion comes packaged with the promise of ultimate fulfillment, but science in particular does not. Religion creates it's own concern above and beyond what I believe is necessary in human psychology. If I have no reason to suspect that a heaven or hell exists, I feel no concern toward the possibility.
Quoting Noble Dust
What if they have no ultimate concern?
Quoting Noble Dust
Things are important to me, but what is of ultimate importance? Me being alive maybe (for now), but not science.
Quoting Noble Dust
I often find myself using this thought experiment to demonstrate the kind of certainty I let in the door along with a complete existential basis for value: Imagine that you're holding a massive and heavy television. Now imagine dropping it squarely on your foot. The referent becomes a painful broken foot; something believably and intrinsically undesirable. A objective emerges: an unbroken foot; a lack of pain; comfort.
The ends are somewhat clear to me. And all of us exploit science in the same ways in order to achieve these ends.
My prediction is that unless the increase or decrease in cultural development was drastic enough, the results would be fairly insignificant. But if we're talking about drastic change, then the results would be of greater significance, although hard to predict on your terms. A number of people would probably turn to religion as a means of coping with and explaining away this drastic change, and a number of others would probably be disillusioned with religion, as it would have failed to meet their expectations, and they would be jolted out of their former sense of security and begin to face up to the harshness of reality. Which number would be greater? Hard to say. In the event of a technological crash, for example, my guess would be that a greater number of people would turn to religion as a sort of comfort blanket, but even if that's a win for religion, it's a loss for humanity.
I don't think that there's enough of a basis to your claim that dependence on religion will return and atheism will be eclipsed. There already is widespread dependence on religion to varying extents, and I can't help but find that to be largely sad and unfortunate. I am inclined to agree with Marx with regards to that passage from which that famous line of his, "opium of the masses", came.
Judging by a number of recent studies, religion is declining and secularism is rising.
I feel the same way. I think it's a memory or an intuition - possibly it's even what Plato meant, in his idea of 'anamnesis' - that at some time, before this life, we really knew it, and some part of ourselves remembers that knowing. So the spiritual quest - which Plato called the philosophical quest - is 'unforgetting' (that's what an-amnesis means) that great thing we once knew.
I personally had a vivid premonition of that, aged about 12 or 13, when I felt I was right on the verge of remembering some great thing I had once known, and which was the most important thing you could know. That experience had profound influence on my life subsequently.
My view, over the subsequent years, was that religion, in the Western sense, had defined whatever that intuition was in its own way, and then insisted that you believe it in that particular way. A lot of Christianity is grounded in 'right belief' (which is the etymological meaning of 'orthodoxy'.) Whereas, I always felt that some state of higher knowing, which Christianity didn't understand, but Eastern religions did.
I'm not so black-and-white about it now, but that's because I have looked at it from both perspectives. In other words, I have learned to re-interpret the Christian approach from a more oriental perspective. Interestingly, Tillich was criticised by a number of other Protestants for being 'too oriental'.
The article you reference says that secularism is increasing based on polls and other studies around the world currently, but it also projects a return of the religious uptick by 2050. The Pew Research report "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050"
The problem is the clarity of this ultimate search for fulfilment in the long run, the sustainability of happiness of which, in my opinion, requires an authenticity of mind, clear from subjective influences and the fear of our separateness from the world around us. We inhibit our perceptual capacity because the angst or the emotional dread precipitated by unheimlich, the realisation that we are 'drawing away' from the childish reality. The problem here is that our minds are instinctually trained to overcome or eliminate anxiety and since our fears are being drawn from a concept we cannot understand or the 'nothingness' of freedom that draws people away from their own sense of significance, we repress the alienating force.
So we end up developing a type of ressentiment, ignoring these feelings and never transcending by conforming to others - allowing others to think on our behalf - because by following and failing to exercise autonomy they feel the same 'comfort' of their childish reality, distracting themselves with the pleasure materialism provides along with the applaud of their social connections. Capitalism enables the masses to resist ever exercising objective thought. Thus, unconsciously, they 'hate' themselves in a way because of this cowardice, so they project it by treating others with this insatiable hostility (doesn't need to be violent, it could simply be trying to crush opponents as you attempt to climb the corporate ladder or by exercising the right 'image' like in Instagram, or quite simply just shutting off from the world and not caring at all etc).
Moral consciousness - for me - is the only way that would enable a person to begin exercising independent thought because they begin to exercise objective thinking, or Nietzsche' conventionalism. I think that was what Jesus was talking about albeit in a simplified manner to help push along all the morons, using moral parables to get people think objectively. I don't know what Christianity is on about.
Quoting Noble Dust
This struggle is not a unique problem only for the religious; I follow no religion, I follow no institution or person and I believe in God. The concept of the infinite in science is just as baffling and I feel that the only thing left in the end is faith since no one can neither prove nor disprove. What makes this faith is what one would need to question and any anthropomorphic projections that render the infinite as a man on a cloud or something temporal is only necessitated to support the smallness of our perceptions and influenced by the historical, but the logic behind it is actually quite sensible pending the elimination of the archaic traditions. This returns back to the above-mentioned, the need to transcend and to learn how to utilise the mind objectively and authentically. We need social constructs for language and understanding, etc &c., and though much of our learning heavily involves the subjective and emotional during our developmental stages that we attach to for most of our lives, our mind is a tool and tools can function objectively.
The problem is that most people never reach that, aimlessly inhibiting their own capacity for happiness as they are fraught with the powerlessness of their fear for anxiety, failing to exercise independent and rational judgement because they don't want to let go.
Care to expound on this special kind of intelligence required to be an able lawyer? Is that the capacity to outwit the others, thereby proving your point, regardless of whether or not what you are arguing for is the truth? Would that be a type of intelligence to be proud of?
According to Aaron Burr, an able lawyer and, I think, a much maligned figure in American history: "The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained." There's some basis for that claim, or was then. There's a lot more law now and the opportunity to "make" law solely by clever argument in a courtroom was no doubt much greater when Burr practiced then it is for practitioners now. But for a litigator, and particularly one that regularly does jury trials, what Burr referred to is primarily the ability to persuade others that a position being taken is reasonable and just and should be accepted. This involves the ancient art of discourse or rhetoric employed by such as Cicero, a great lawyer and politician and a great communicator of philosophy if not a great philosopher. I think that a degree of intelligence and skill is required for one to be a successful practitioner of that art.
Also required for one to be an able lawyer (I think) is the ability to study language closely, a good grasp of logic, a good memory, analytic skill (the ability to create or rebut an argument), and a practical knowledge of human nature. Self-regard, confidence and a thick skin are useful as well, but I'm uncertain that intelligence is a factor in those characteristics.
What is "true" in the law and what is "good" in it can be very different things than they're considered to be outside of it. The law is a vast system with rules which have developed over many centuries and one of the purposes of those rules, I believe, is to support the rule of law which can be opposed to individual views of what is "right." The advocacy system under which the law operates here contemplates a conflict between two opposing views played out in front of an impartial tribunal. For the most part I think the intelligence required to be a lawyer is something one can be proud of, but as is the case with other things the use to which the intelligence is put may in certain circumstances be unworthy.
:o
Although, you could be right, considering you are still talking to me and you're are nutcase... :-*
All analogies break down, but it would depend on how I came to the belief that a ball exists there. If a stranger said so, I may not believe. If someone I trust very much, like my best friend, said so, I may believe. But I'm not sure what that does with your analogy. Unless "no access" includes the word of other people. But then, how would I have come to the belief at all? That's why I don't totally get it. It seems like it starts as formal logic and then turns into an analogy.
On top of that, I would rather spend my time studying different religions, trying to experience them, studying the history of religions, and trying to understand the history of thought, when it comes to discerning whether belief in God is a credible belief. Taking to hard rationalism or empiricism to answer the question of God seems like a misapplication of a human faculty. Ever-increasing layers of formal abstraction will surely lead you to a place that's safely far away from any possible experience or conception of a god or divinity, or the infinite.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't see this is a valid reason, morally, to make it an ultimate concern. Perhaps Trump feels the same as you about this.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It's true that science doesn't offer that, as such. I wasn't making that argument, but maybe it seemed like I was. But there's a trend in popular culture and media to accept science with what the new atheists like to call "blind faith" when they're talking about Christians. In a sense I think we're living in a Dark Ages of the Internet, where technology (science being it's progenitor) and life are one fluid experience; the world is experienced as a technological world centered around "tech", in the same way that the world was experienced as a spiritual world centered around the church in the Middle Ages. Living in one of the most secular, progressive liberal cities in the world, I see every day this humanistic worldview alive and well, and it's relation to technology. There is absolutely a promise of ultimate fulfillment in this sort of popular view. Technology and it's accompanying opulence are a large enabler of this humanistic worldview. Agnosticism, hard or soft atheism, or whatever don't seem to matter in this view, because the god of humanism is the human person. The promise of ultimate fulfillment is the cleansing of the human race by way of the political legislation of social equality. It may sound hair-brained, but my critique of science taking on a religious character in popular culture is because of these observations of the type of epoch we're living in.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
According to Tillich, everyone does. I tend to tentatively agree, although I haven't finished his book and I'm still mulling over the implications. I think I explained earlier his argument.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't think I suggested science might be your ultimate concern.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If the ends, if our ultimate concern, is always and only comfort, then I can't see anything other than pure nihilism being the case. Survival or comfort as the goal always leads to bloodshed. So, if survival or comfort is the goal, then bloodshed in the name of it is permissible. And so nihilism. And I don't buy the idea that altruism, working together for our own survival and comfort, is the way to achieve peace, or a way to assign meaningful meaning to life that would sufficiently disprove the view as nihilistic. This is a classic bourgeois sentiment. Altruism as a way for individuals to find their own comfort or survival is still ultimately selfish. Altruism by definition means selfless concern for the well-being of others. "No greater love has a man than this: to lay his life down for his friends."
When I first read about Plato's idea, I didn't identify with it at all. But over time I've come to feel some agreement with it. I often have an intuitive feeling of "remembering", or a feeling of a past state of equilibrium. I get it in dreams and the waking memory of dreams. I'll often wake up with a feeling of complete and utter peace, like a lifting of a veil, and then it recedes within seconds. It's like all the psychological weight of adulthood is momentarily removed from my spirit, but then is draped back down around me. I'll probably be laughed off this forum for considering that significant.
Quoting Wayfarer
I have mixed feelings about "right belief". It's part of what tore me away from the church, but I also realize that it's an intrinsic part of the whole ethos of Christ's coming, death, and resurrection. I was always struck by the magnitude of the idea that the Jews, always expectant of their messiah, never even anticipated that his death and resurrection would be for all of humanity, for "Jews and Gentiles" alike. So I was always struck by the revelatory character of the story of Christ recorded in the gospels. So the idea of a messiah for all of mankind surely must be the genesis of the need for right belief, the genesis of orthodoxy itself. And yet the dogmatism of orthodoxy is oppressive and has been the cause of so much oppression.
I see the need to think independently and authentically and objectively, but I don't equate that with the process of transcending the subjective and emotional developmental stages. A child is emotional because love needs to be established. Love still needs to be established for the objective, critically thinking adult. The need to establish love never goes away, and this is always a subjective (of the subject) and emotional need. Indeed, the absence of the sort of unconditional love that the parent offered is probably the genesis of so much human suffering. On top of that, I grew up in a very isolated environment where I had a lot of freedom; so things like thinking independently, critically, being imaginative, and embracing freedom where always easy for me to embrace, even in childhood. I trust I'm not the only one who's had such an experience, even if the latest psychological studies didn't happen to include us.
The analogy describes the agnostic perspective. Having access to my closet equates to actually having evidence or knowledge of god as opposed to being unable to get such information. You might not be agnostic, but I am. Even if a trusted friend told me god exists (oh how they do) since I believe they have no way of getting that kind of knowledge, I would not believe them.
Agnosticism entails a presumption about the state of the world, but believing that religious experience can offer experience of the infinite is just as presumptuous (more so in my opinion).
Adhering to materialism, rationalism, and empiricism is how I choose to answer questions about the state of the world. The point of abstraction in the analogy though is for benefit of the reader, not myself. It's an extremely simple analogy and uses extremely simple and uncontroversial terms to convey the point that as an atheist I do not actually possess any atheist beliefs, I simply lack theistic beliefs. I don't believe there is a ball in my closet, and I don't believe that there is no ball in my closet.
Quoting Noble Dust
So you don't think getting the things you want is an appropriate basis for your concerns? Ultimate or otherwise?
I still don't really know what ultimate concerns and ultimate fulfillment bereft of divine salvation actually looks like. "Certainty" is a poor replacement, which is why I cast a broad net and harvest the smaller fish...
What's your ultimate concern?
Also, How is "God" a proper moral basis for "ultimate concern"?
Quoting Noble Dust
Modern social justice [s]gone wild[/s] movements are indeed not unlike religion and seem to offer fulfillment of a different kind, but they are relatively few in number, and technology or science is not their object of worship. It's their own amorphus concept of justice.
Humanism doesn't even really factor into it. These movements are dominated by politically charged platitudes rather than an actual exploration of moral normative values based on the somewhat universal human values (desire for life and freedom). Humanism is a moral tool for achieving it's own ends (promoting life and freedom, for instance) which seeks to exist on a rational plane; it need not be wielded as an act of Tillich's faith.
We are living in a new age, that's certain. Digital media brings digital religious media, and new religions. It changes old ones too. Humans transcending reason in acts of faith surrounding the object of their devotion is the ritual of a game we might never stop playing simply due to typical human psychology. I'm happy to have abnormal psychology if that is the case.
Quoting Noble Dust
Well Tillich supposed that the ultimate concern of skeptics is truth. I'm asking what if it's just a normal concern which doesn't involve the transcendence of reason? Tillich's interpretation of religion as an act of "faith" only seems to apply to religious minds.
Quoting Noble Dust
But survival might as well be of ultimate importance to me because everything of importance to me exists in this world, so I need to be alive to get at it.
Quoting Noble Dust
How does survival and comfort as a goal always lead to bloodshed? Why can we not enter into some sort of common agreement in pursuit of mutual survival and comfort?
Seems pretty far from nihilism to me.
Quoting Noble Dust
Who said we needed altruism? I can work with greed and we can achieve the ends we want by agreeing to cooperate because it's more profitable. Capitalism alleges to do this, and humanist/theistic morality does it too.
Valuing comfort and survival isn't nihilistic, it just doesn't come come from the supreme value isle of human ideology.
I think that's the signal of something important, and not to be belittled.
As for Plato - my knowledge of Plato is sketchy, although I have an intuitive feeling for many of his ideas. I generally like Christian Platonism, although there's hardly anything of that in Protestantism in my view. It's much more typical the medieval mystics.
Quoting Noble Dust
That's not quite the point I'm trying to get across. The distinction I'm trying to make is between the attitude of being 'a believer', as opposed to learning through (spiritual) experience. One of the motivating factors behind a lot of popular Eastern philosophy, is the idea of validation through spiritual experience. (I always used to take that for granted, although as the years have passed I'm less confident about it in some ways. )
In the ancient world, that was the distinction between 'pistis' and 'gnosis'. The Pistic approach was associated with the well-known fish symbol of early Christianity. The gnostic attitude was very different. Belief, to them, is simply instrumental, it can only point you in the direction of getting the real insight which is needed to save yourself. (Have a look at the abstract of this book.)
Why it's important, is because of the dichotomy that is set up between belief and atheism which is such a dominant dynamic in modern Western culture. The gnostics had a rather different view of what religion means in the first place.
That can't be right; if access to the closet was access to the knowledge about God, then you surely would have that access (assuming you have access to your own closet). So the analogy breaks down again (so my first sentence isn't evidence for God, it's just where your analogy breaks down). Unless the closet is locked? But it's your closet. So you lost the key, or something? It seems like maybe you have.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Atheism can also be presumptuous; presumptions aren't inherently bad, despite the word's negative connotation. It's more a question of which if any presumptions might be justified.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is another analogical confusion; I wasn't equating a friend telling me about the ball to a friend telling me about God. The friend in this case would be something like the 5 proofs of God's existence or whatever, regardless of whether you happen to find any veracity in those proofs (I don't personally).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No I don't; it depends on what it is I want. I've wanted plenty of things that are harmful to myself.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't either.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If you're asking me personally, the idea of God becoming incarnate in the form of a man so as to impregnate the world with unconditional love, leading to a process of historical salvation of humanity would be a reason for God, as such, to be an ultimate concern. Or, if God is love, then love would be the ultimate concern here.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'm not sure. The Truth, maybe. Regardless of comfort, or survival, or spiritual fulfillment. But I think all of those things will be subsumed within it. I trust to the nobler desires within us, but I don't count them to be the ends themselves. I'll willfully continue the search, but I won't make the search my ultimate concern.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What if I simply lack atheistic beliefs? I simply lack the belief that i lack belief in a god?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It's not, but historically, the secularism in a country like America is tied to the rise of scientific empiricism (vs. the conservative right and their adherence to literal interpretations of the Bible). So we have this false dichotomy of either evolution or creationism (which is already very passe). But the progressive left is tied in some way to this tension that existed; so much of the left's criticism of fundamentalist Christianity (fully justified) has to do with this tension of bad literal interpretations of scripture on the one hand, and, on the other, the only reliable retaliatory weapon...scientific evidence to the contrary. So now in 2017, I think we live in a political landscape where this ridiculous twilight zone fight between evolution and creationism is thankfully a thing of the past, but the implications still play out in a world where the progressive left is still unconsciously influenced by this implicitly materialist outlook that places scientific evidence above all. By the way, I do agree with you about these social justice movements going wild, regardless of whether we disagree about why.
Also, I'm not so sure the women's march on Washington would avail your claim that these movements are few in number.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But aren't these political platitudes so profoundly influenced by humanism?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So you're saying what if truth is a normal concern which doesn't involve the transcendence of reason?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, survival is just the mechanism of life itself. It is NOT life itself. Again, "No greater love has a man than this: to lay his life down for his friends."
Quoting VagabondSpectre
See my comments on altruism, of which you then asked "who said we needed altruism?" I was anticipating the response. So furthermore:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
As I said, this idea of working together for my sake is nothing more than a child manipulating it's parents or her friends to get what she wants for herself. It's childish. That's why I bring up altruism. True altruism, or true unconditional love lays itself down for the other. This concept doesn't avail itself of survival, or creature comforts, or whatever.
And so I bring up nihilism because I see this sort of selfish faux-altruism as a cloaked form of selfishness; so if this is the humanistic, or the agnostic, or the soft-atheistic version of the good life, it's just another form of selfishness, of brute survival cloaked in empirical reason and analytic observation, and so there's ample reason for me, given all this evidence, to just simply declare myself a nihilist and pursue a Dionysian life of whatever I happen to enjoy, until it wears thin and I find it the right time to end my own life. After all, I'm only using others to help me find my own cowardly creature comforts, for the sake of soaking in the precious last 40 years of my pointless, insignificant life. Ah the untold years I'll spend spewing asinine platitudes on philosophy forums before the end!
Thanks.
Quoting Wayfarer
This make sense to me within the context of the Christian mystics, since I still haven't delved into Buddhism or other traditions as I've been wanting to. Learning through spiritual experience is something I feel like I've tasted in my upbringing, but something I've lost touch with as an adult. I'm apprehensive as to what it would look like now (add on to it the other typical adult cares and worries), but it's something I want to explore. I guess desire will only be fulfilled through action...
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm not even familiar with the word pistis, so thanks.
I forgot to mention, though, what do you think the distinction is, then, between the believer and the one who experiences the spiritual?
I mentioned in a post before, the Buddhist 'parable of the raft'. It's worth quoting a passage from it at length, because it's quite unique.
'You should let go even of dhammas' - you don't find that in the Bible.
The need to think authentically, however, necessitates a consciousness of ones own subjective emotions and whether their responses to external stimuli is genuine or merely a symbol of their conformity to escape from the anxious feelings of autonomy, as they remain enslaved or trapped within that small worldview. Transcendence does not imply a complete abandonment of the self or the transcendence of Schopenhauer, but the capacity to objectively remove yourself from being blindly controlled by the irrational prompts of our infantile attachments. This is why our doubts should always be within ourselves as it is easy to lie and tell ourselves our conformity is not actually conformity at all. The only possibility where this transcendence is not necessary is in an environment that nourishes the child to develop a sense of moral consciousness and provides them with the proper support to begin thinking objectively and independently, which is why when one naturally evolves to this next stage of rational autonomy seem to have the need to change the wrong or bad to the right conditions, becoming political activists, artists or anything that challenges immoral situations within our community or at large. That is why I call it moral consciousness.
Quoting Noble Dust
Yet, this appears to be framed under the assumption that every child grows up with love, which is clearly not the case. I might personally be bold enough to say that our emotions are innate but how we utilise this cognitive tool depends on the paradigm of learned psychological traits factoring environmental, social and biological. Like the movie Sleepers, while all four of them were sexually abused as children, two of them became violent and abusive while the other two responded through developing legal careers; everyone' mental faculties differ as do their responses. The fact is, though, as it is a part of our function or a tool, than we can understand it and control it objectively.
Quoting Noble Dust
My adolescence and early adulthood felt like I had a gaping hole in my chest and yet I do not agree that love is established; it is innate, otherwise why else am I about to implode with the intensity of all this love and affection when I grew up mostly alone and in an absence of unconditional love? And there are many people who have grown in an environment where they experienced unconditional love and yet become rather vicious. To be sure, probability in numbers strengthens the former, but the ultimate schism in humanity and the genesis of our suffering is the failure to accept our autonomy, the existential aloneness which is a reality for all of us. I could have easily ignored the angst and become absorbed by conforming to my ridiculous culture where so many other young people entertain themselves with random social bullshit, I instead rather enjoy the comforts and pleasure my environment offers - live in a beautiful apartment, wear nice clothes, do photography, go on hikes - while at the same time dedicating myself to the less fortunate in my community through my work and my studies, being the big sister or friend to young girls who also have no one and give them to confidence to do the same. Going back to what I said, those who do transcend tend to want to change things for the better, objective consciousness almost always instigates moral awareness.
Quoting Noble Dust
I agree, you may have had the right conditions, but I am always doubtful of those that say they embrace freedom and independence with confidence. Some western societies have indeed provided the superficial conditions that enable people to think that they are 'individuals' when really they are blindly following in masses.
I like that reply, it's well composed. If it's the case, as Burr said, that "The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained", then why is God not the law? Many theologians boldly assert, and plausibly maintain the existence of God. But a theologian is not a lawyer. So, is it because there are not enough lawyers boldly asserting the existence of God? Why would a lawyer even try to defend the existence of God, because as the theologians know, this takes great effort, and a lifetime of dedication to plausibly maintain, and there might not be any financial benefit for the lawyer who tried this?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
How can this be the case? Are you saying that there is a different form of "good", and of "true" which the law follows, which is not necessarily good or true for the individual? How could it be, that something which is true or good within the law, is false or bad in common society? Wouldn't this give lawyers license to do bad things, saying that it's bad for normal people to do these things, but it's OK for lawyers, working with the law to do them? Isn't that a double standard, like Plato's Noble Lie? It's good for the rulers to lie to the subjects, because the lying is for the subjects' own good, but it is bad for the subjects to lie.
Burr, as you may know, was the grandson of preacher/theologian Jonathan Edwards. I have the impression Burr wasn't religiously inclined, though. One of the stories you hear about Burr is that, when he was asked by an attending cleric while on his deathbed whether he renounced Satan, he replied that it wasn't the time to be making enemies. You can hear similar stories about Voltaire and Machiavelli, though.
The answer to your question may be that the law can't be God, or God the law But it would seem to me that many have been converted by bold assertions, which perhaps were plausibly maintained, and so have come to believe in God or one of a particular kind. What Burr was probably referring to as "the law" was, in fact, what people--a judge or a jury--could be persuaded was the law.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well, consider. In criminal law, in the U.S. at least, juries regularly decide a defendant is guilty or not guilty of a crime. That's a determination, a finding, in the law; subject to revision as the result of an appeal, but otherwise inviolate. However, that determination is not necessarily true (as commonly defined) or untrue. That's to say, a person may well be not guilty of a crime and yet have committed it--may in fact be guilty of it, or so I think most would say.
And, a judicial decision may be "good law" if it hasn't been overturned in the sense that it's binding even if otherwise bad under most definitions. The Supreme Court's Dred Scott was a perfectly "good" legal decision (it was appropriate given the law) until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The point of the analogy is that nobody has access to the closet (i make it my closet in the analogy so it makes sense in the real world; you don't have access to my closet. The analogy is for you, the reader). The analogy doesn't break down at all. God is not literally in my closet after all, it's a metaphor. My closet is a metaphor for wherever god can be found. You're going on about keys and closet ownership and are missing the entire point of the analogy. If you assent to agnosticism, then believing that there is or isn't a ball in my closet would be to make the same kind of claim that theists and hard-atheists make.
Quoting Noble Dust
My atheism entails no presumptions. I agnostically presume humans have no access to knowledge about God(s). I take no actual position either way as a result, which is de facto soft-atheism.
Quoting Noble Dust
"It would depend on how I came to the belief that a ball exists there. If a stranger said so, I may not believe. If someone I trust very much, like my best friend, said so, I may believe.". Whether or not your friends are the umpteen proofs of God or not doesn't change my retort. Your friends don't have access to knowledge about God. That's agnosticism.
Quoting Noble Dust
So God is an ultimate concern because he offers salvation? Sure, but that seems greedy.
If everyone only obeys God in order to avoid hell and get into heaven then they're more hedonistic than yours truly.
Quoting Noble Dust
You cannot lack atheistic beliefs because there's no such thing to lack. If you lack the beliefs of theists and hard-atheists then you're a soft-atheist.
You could lack atheistic lack of belief, which statistically would indicate you're a theist!
Quoting Noble Dust
The regressive left doesn't really go after Christianity though, at least not very much these days. When politicians could openly question evolution and not get laughed off stage, there were leftists there to mock and ridicule them, but bible literalism is at an all time low. The new enemy is the colonial west, and the victims are everyone other than straight white males. Some atheists are a part of this movement, but I would wager most are not. Atheism is not political and not religious; it describes a lack of religious belief, and nothing necessary beyond that.
Modern regressives don't even use science or reason. All of their arguments hinge on the morality of "hurt feelings" and I've seen them openly attack science itself as an oppressive colonial force. "Decolonize it" they say. [throw all of it out the window]. Observe:
Hatred for trump and women's equality rearing it's head is emotional and political, but it's not science and it's not atheism.
Quoting Noble Dust
As you can see from the above video, no. Their political platitudes comes from their own distinctly emotional psychology of grievance wrapped up in political delusion and historical equivocation.
The university departments which produce these groups are not the science departments, they're sub departments within the arts. Women's studies, gender science, sociology (sociology is internally divided, but is somewhat afflicted) are where the theories generating these platitudes are formulated. They're quite unscientific.
Quoting Noble Dust
That's right. I'm interested in reasonable truth, not ultimate, divine and gilded truth. Reason is what I rely on to try and discover or approximate "truth", if I transcended reason, I would therefore be failing in that endeavor.
Quoting Noble Dust
What's so great about great love?
Sure there are consequences for which I would sacrifice my life, but if we're not talking about altruism or sacrificing one's self for others because the pain of losing them would be to much to willingly endure, then the most important thing is life itself.
Quoting Noble Dust
So you're an altruist then?
Quoting Noble Dust
Apparently anything short of altruism is nihilism. Right?
Cooperating to improve our lives through the use of reason is clearly the worst kind of childish selfishness at our disposal. I mean, why are we trying to improve our own lives through cooperation instead of altruistically dedicating ourselves to other people? We should all be walking barefoot in the streets offering to wash each-other's feet. Don't worry, God will provide. Yes I can see it now... We shall cast low all those false pretenders who behaved morally only because they wanted them and their family to live in a moral world (shameful greed!) and shame them for the naive selfish bastards they truly are. Those material driven foolish scientists with their machines and wealth production, it's all bad. We need to be giving wealth to the poor, not wasting time by producing more of it! Duhh~ Obviously!
Humans are selfish, and so things like social contract theory and humanism seek to offer rational paths toward moral behavior (don't steal, don't murder, etc...), effectually the same thing as moral altruism, and you object on the basis that they're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons... No, they have to be completely selfless, or they're nihilistic children, you say...
Atheism has nothing to do with my moral positions, but for what it's worth: morality is a mutually agreeable strategy/code of conduct which is designed to promote a world that we all want to live in (one with freedom and freedom from suffering). You can judge the quality of a moral position by finding out how well it actually promotes the values it sets out to promote, and freedom and happiness are the values I seek to promote for everyone and also myself. Apparently it's nihilism though, because I'm doing it for selfish reasons like getting to live in a desirable environment and abating guilt/sympathy for others... Instead of what reason? Pleasing God and getting into heaven? Being some completely selfless being who doesn't care about comfort at all? That resembles nihilism in my opinion.
(Remember, we can always escape this nihilism simply by dropping a T.V on our feet)
Dionysus was a God, and I'm sure he could turn water into wine, but here in the material world someone has got to make that wine, and if you want to drink it you've got to trade them something for their effort. You've got to contribute. You will find that trying to spend as much time behaving as Dionysus would is exactly what people are already up to, and they like it that way. That's the whole point of industry, and the aim of most invention.
The evils of embracing the material world is something that religion constantly drummed into my head as a child, but the more they listed off the glorious material delights this world has to offer, the more I realized denying the whole of them is highly regrettable.
A "holy reason" is a reason with holes in it, as all good reasons should be. ;)
On a more serious, though no less profound, (and curiously related) note; do you not believe that reverence for things is the highest form of motivation?
Or again, as Leonard Cohen would have it: “There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in”...
You have stated what is the sum of my reasons for distancing myself from belief in God: God has been (usually is, probably will be) presented as a being about which we have specific knowledge. The knowledge isn't limited to the Bible, which I do not count as evidence about God. It's very good evidence of beliefs about God.
The churches also claim to have belief about God. Revelation didn't altogether come to an end when the canon was closed. For instance, The Catholic Church knows that the saints intercede on our behalf with God, even specializing in particular problems. I don't know how they know that, but they think they do. Evangelicals can channel the Holy Spirit and then translate what the Holy Spirit said. I don't know how they can do that, but they think they can. (I say "fie upon them")
So, what's left of God if we don't/can't know anything about God? Well, God ceases to be a "person" with preferences, dislikes, total power, perfections, and all that. Either God just disappears, (and we are hard atheists) or God becomes non-personal, and does not have specific characteristics. It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it means that we can't put God in any sort of labeled box.
God outside the box is just too far out for a lot of believers (in the God of personhood with preferences, priorities, prohibitions, perfections, powers, etc.) and one becomes some sort of diseased deviant pariah of disbelief in the eyes of the fundamentalists of orthodoxy.
What do you say to those who claim not merely to believe, but to enjoy a personal relationship with their God?
Imaginary friend? But even if so, would it matter if it transformed your life? Are we really so certain as to what 'imaginary' means, anyway? What if all friendships are imaginary?
If they ask me what I believe, I will tell them that I do not believe we can know anything about God, but that does not mean that I am, therefore, certain that God does not exist. I may tell them that I also don't believe that they have special gifts which enable them to know anything specific and concrete about God. I know from experience, that those sort of statements will likely lead to a prolonged discussion which will not be very productive.
Quoting John
If people imagine that they have God as a friend, and this leads them to live an exemplary life, bully for them. Belief in the unseen (God) or the highly unlikely (Socialism in America) or the possible and terrible (fascist coup d'etat) is something that people can do with both hands tied behind their back. I am as likely as anyone else to entertain intense interest in the unseen and the unlikely.
Generally, I don't think believing in the imaginary is a good idea. Humans need to remain in touch with reality as much as possible. We are altogether too prone to drift off into some sort of nonsensical fantasy as it is.
It is instructive how, nowadays, everything that is said in the various revelatory religions is dismissed. All of what would be presented as evidence is first of all, kicked into the long grass - then the challenge is 'what else do you have?'
It's true, you put a number of people in a room, with no access to history or the accounts of those who have claimed to have seen the 'revealed truth', then the odds are, you're never going to see anything like 'God'. But I think it simply fails to comprehend the nature of the question. It's like the blind dismissing the possibility of sight.
In light of the way American religion is often presented and understood, that kind of scepticism is quite understandable. But American mainstream religion might be a poor example, in the greater scheme of things. I think to get an idea of what religions mean requires an openness to what William James called 'the varieties of religious experience' - which are vast, diverse, and ubiquitous across culture and history. So those accounts contain the testimony of those who have claimed to know, to have 'encountered the Divine'.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, as a matter of fact, the annals of the process of canonization contains a considerable amount of evidence for miraculous healing. You probably know that the office of the 'devil's advocate' was instituted by the Church, to test claims of miracles attributed to saints, so as to effectively challenge bogus or dubious claims. And many of those that stand up to the challenge are indeed impossible to explain away by chance or coincidence. A physician who was asked to provide expert testimony in one such case, went on to write a book on the phenomenon. She said:
Pondering Miracles, Medical and Religious, Jacalyn Duffin.
I know what a Dawkins would say when presented with such evidence; he would declare that it couldn't be real; that there simply must be some scientistic account for this observations. That is the negative faith of atheism in action.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I agree that the video is an egregious example of anti-science and anti-intellectualism. But I'd be careful about extending that to 'any kind of religious person'.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What the religious woud say you're not seeing is that the higher states of spiritual awakening, are actually the greatest possible experiences. They're better than being rich, having endless pleasure, sex and power. It is possible to realise such states, which are imperishable, not subject to change and decay, and internally self-generating, kind of like fusion energy. Beside them, everything else seems like rubbish.
I'm still stuck on trying to interpret the title - 'Religion will win in the end'. Since religion is an activity, I can't see what it would mean for it to win, or for it to lose. Is it like at the end of a day in the Test Match where the upper hand has changed several times and there have been some spectacular displays of skill and athleticism, and Richie Benaud says 'The game of cricket was the winner on the day'?
PS I hope I didn't offend any anti-religious cricketers or cricket-hating monks by comparing cricket to religion. I think they're both great. It's the governing bodies I have a problem with. Damn that ICC.
Quoting Wayfarer
There is the Bible, which doesn't provide information directly about God. What it reveals is the testimony of people who believed that God existed. Such testimony is worthwhile in various ways, even if it doesn't reveal direct, objective information about God.
I would say if I was sure what I was saying, that the God who is not in the box (and never was in the box) is the "ground of our being". But like I said, I'm not sure, exactly, what that means.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't believe it. What I don't believe is that someone was healed because the spirit of a dead person (like Mother Theresa or St. Catherine) thought that it was a good idea. I don't think God did it directly, either. What I believe happened in these situations is unexplained healing which has occurred periodically in cases where saints were not involved. People who take sugar pills, for instance, have experienced significant improvements in tumors, for a while. "For a while" was often what the actual drugs were capable of doing. Usually, though, patients receiving the placebo do not experience benefit.
Over the centuries, billions -- maybe trillions --of prayers have been addressed to the saints who did nothing for the subjects of the prayers. As one ex-Episcopalian priest put it, "Nothing fails like prayer."
And even if saints were actually behind various miraculous survivals, their good work comprises a body of action that is nothing if not arbitrary and capricious. Prayers rise to heaven for 1000 dying children; 2 children recover, 998 die forthwith.
I have heard more than a few testimonies about the miracles of God. One particular one was from a Lutheran Deaconess. An acquaintance of hers was working in Alaska and several men were being transported in a helicopter. The helicopter crashed, and 2 out of 7 survived. She proclaimed a miracle. Well, why no miracle for the remaining 5?
Why no miracle for all the victims of all the bad things that are continuously happening to good people?
Ah, well, all of a sudden "we don't know". We "know" that God performed a miracle in saving 2 out of of 7, but we are suddenly in the land of mystery when it comes to the dead 5.
If we think God is capable of miracles, if we identify miracles but can't explain the non-miracles, then we are doing a great disservice to God. We're putting him into a Mr. Fixit box for our own purposes.
The OP is futurism that I've pondered for the last couple of years (since I became skeptical about there ever being a global government.) In futurism, you're exploring possibilities. It makes sense to talk about feminism, for instance, winning in the end... or not. Just add a touch of grace to your clanky thought processes. :P
Indeed. When the RC church is able to produce a case where an amputee has regrown a leg after prayers on their behalf, there will be reason for non-RC people to take these claims of miraculous healing seriously.
That was a very eloquent post, by the way.
I really do get that. I have had quite a few relatives die and others permanently disabled, and it raised very tough questions. But the article I referred to was by a qualified medical pracitioner who investigated the phenomenon of apparent miracles for the Church. She makes a point of saying that the priests themselves always assumed a position of extreme skepticism, almost cynicism. But the cases that couldn't be disproven, were said to be evidence of miraculous cures. I think, considering the amount of documented evidence, it simply can't all just be dismissed.
Quoting andrewk
Come now. The miraculous is not necessarily the outlandish. The case quoted above was one of about 1500 examined by that author, who states in the article that she is atheist. She is talking purely about unexplained cures of life-threatening illnesses, and she says there is plenty of evidence.
The other evidential issue I often bring up in this context is that of children with past-life memories. That too is generally dismissed on the grounds that it simply couldn't happen.
I think the underlying issue is that we've put all this in a box, marked 'religion', and declared our attitude towards it, and we don't at all want to contemplate the possibility of opening it again.
Quoting John
Motivation for what exactly? First let us eliminate any socio-religious influences and ascertain what motivation itself would be required for. I would not say reverence is the highest, but particularly in matrimony, a deep respect or admiration for a beloved can motivate one to become the best that they can be.
For me personally, I believe that love is the highest form of motivation and certainly the most sustainable and empowering, but how we approach the subject is as problematic as the subject of God because there are a plethora of interpretations that often conflate and confuse; if I say God to a Catholic, they see Jesus, whereas I don't see an image and I see Jesus as just a man. When I say love to a person who follows some New Age worldview, they see obscure, cosmic influences that they need to absorb through mindfulness where as I see it as not as a sentiment but as innate which can be obscured by psychological and environmental influences.
Love has a universality that reverence doesn't, which is why the latter is best suited at describing intimate relationships. This universality - or infinite - is the ultimate, God, and becomes what we strive to attain because we no longer just love one object or objects that have some benefit to us, but all things and thus our approach to the world becomes sustainable and genuine. But this requires discipline and learning because, as I said, it is often obscured by psychological and environmental influences. It is why I mentioned to ND that we need to first attain an authenticity of mind by reaching a state of rational autonomy.
"In the nineteenth century the problem was that God is dead; in the twentieth century the problem is that man is dead." Erich Fromm
Well, you did. :’( Bobby Cliff for life.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I actually think they can be productive depending on the person whom you decide to discuss the topic with. Those statements are sensible, but somehow I feel that there is more and your preference to avoid prolonged and oftentimes ineffectual discussions may be the impetus behind that statement, which interests me to further discussion. So, I agree with what you say, but if I follow no religion and I believe in God, that this certainty is based on faith alone without any symbiotic attachment to overcome the existential angst, what would that make me?
This would depend upon how you would define God.
Sure, but in the case of the Vatican's so-called miracles, they are never outlandish. They are all easily encompassed within the very wide area of things we do not understand about the human body. How strange of God to always avoid doing a miracle in an area where we understand the body very well - such as an inability to regrow legs.
Quoting Wayfarer I don't know who this 'we' is. Presumably you speak for yourself, but for who else? Not me. The trouble with miracle claims is not that they are in a box marked religion but in a box marked quackery. They belong with the carnival snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century, for the reasons so eloquently described by BC, amongst others. For me, the box marked religion is a 'good' box and deals with spirituality - which may or may not include a sense of the divine, not with rent-seeking petitions to a supernatural mafia boss.
I don't define God and what we attribute to God are properties or representations that attempt to affirm our inferiority and the perfections we should strive towards. For example, the mevlevi strive towards God through love and by eliminating their ego in order to reach 'perfection'.
If I am striving toward moral excellence without necessitating any recognition from a person or community or institution, because of the absence of 'codes' that regulate behaviour, my endeavour can be discredited by the prejudice that no one can can authentically reach this higher state without guidance and the approval by an authority or higher figure. In the end, what you are striving for is others and that is just not good enough for me. It is the same with what you read and accept; should I avoid Heidegger because of his personal choices, or should I accept all of what he writes, rather than just read and appreciate what aspects of his work may be sensible? I have read the New Testament, indeed the Old Testament and the Qur'an, do I need to pick one and adhere to all of it, or should I ignore all three of them? No, there is wisdom and a great many moral suggestions that I appreciate and adhere to, but certainly not all. How I choose to interpret that is mine and mine alone without the influence of a religious institution' interpretation.
If reaching a state of moral perfection is entirely a subjective endeavour, hence why Jesus spoke in parables, then how does practicing a religion influence the independence or autonomy required for one to achieve this?
Ah come on, I know you were joking. (L)
I can't stand here at this distance in time and kilometers and say Dr. Duffin (a hematologist) didn't know here ass from her elbow. In the case discussed in Wikipedia, she was asked to examined slides (which she assumed were part of a malpractice suit) from a patient with an aggressive form of leukemia. The woman's blood slides showed she had myeloblastic leukemia, “the most aggressive leukemia known.”
She assumed the patient had died in the intervening 5 years since the slides had been made. But no: the patient had, after a relapse, gone into remission, and had stayed in remission for 5 years.
Is this a miracle? The Vatican thought it was a miracle. But how would one differentiate a spontaneous remission (it happens once in a blue moon) from the intervention of a saint? And for that matter, how would the Vatican know that it was the prospective saint that performed the miracle and not an experienced saint?
You think a regrown leg is outlandish, but are badly deformed and undifferentiated cancer cells that become properly formed and differentiated any less outlandish?
The patient in remission has reason to rejoice and be exceeding glad, for she was whizzing down the chute to the grave, and then she was back home, doing whatever she does. But in 99,999 out of 100,000 cases, the unfortunate patient (with whatever disease they have) lands in the grave right on time, regardless of how many prayers are said.
I just don't believe in the God that periodically hears some prayers and acts, but in most cases does nothing. Rather, I prefer (it takes some effort) to believe in a God who does not intervene, perhaps can not intervene, but shares our suffering. I don't believe in the Grand Reward of Heaven, either, or Hell. God doesn't preside over a paradise spa, and didn't set up torture chambers in the sub-basement of the triple-decker cosmos (heaven up, hell down, us in the middle).
Now, for many people this is as good as no god at all, because they are pretty wedded to hell-fire, fluffy white clouds of heaven, the pearly gates (as revealed in many a New Yorker cartoon) and the bearded god on a throne.
So you would put Catholicism generally in the same box? The literature i mentioned concerned cases that were examined by medical specialists specifically to eliminate fraud and spurious claims. You think they all must be false as a matter of principle?
They do ask those questions. That's why I brought up these cases. And if I or a loved one were diagnosed with cancer (heaven forbid) there is no way I would go out looking for a faith healer. I would rely on medicine.
There's lots of "evidence" of witchcraft, sorcery and magic from various sources from the end of the middle ages right up until the present where these beliefs still pervade less developed countries in Africa and elsewhere. In these cases, the Catholic church have often been on the "right" side of the equation because they have had an obvious interest in divesting people of traditional paganistic beliefs. Of course, they have also had an interest in replacing this natural thirst for the supernatural with their own version in the form of "miracles". So, I don't see any reason to take these reports seriously. The claim "it's a miracle" is just a stand in for "it's unexplained", and the more scientific ignorance shrinks the more the world of "miracles" does.
No, I think they are mistaken because:
(1) the claims are of exactly the kind one would expect if they were mistaken, ie never anything that directly contravenes science, like regrowing a leg; and
(2) they mock and insult all those people that have sincerely prayed for healing and have not received it - not what one would expect from a good God.
This is not a matter of pro vs anti religion. It's a matter of genuine spirituality vs witch-doctory. People who shackle their faith to such claims, rather than to personal spiritual experience, are making a profound mistake.
Take syphilis: One gets a sore on one's dick, on the roof of one's mouth, or in the vagina and it is a bit uncomfortable. Maybe there are some other troublesome symptoms, Then it goes away and sometimes nothing much happens for many years, at least that one would connect with the original sore. 3 decades later one may go insane from end-stage syphilis. Hepatitis B, on the other hand, can make one extremely ill, then clear up (spontaneously -- there isn't any treatment). Again, liver cancer may be a consequence down the line.
Herpes Zoster -- shingles -- can be excruciatingly painful and look like hell (large areas of skin covered with densely packed little red blisters, like the surface of a raspberry). It can, indeed often does, go into remission, sometimes abruptly. The herpes virus (chickenpox) that caused it in the first place, is still there, and may return. Without a knowledge of viruses (available only after the early 1900s) one would have a hard time explaining this.
Physicians didn't always know the difference between an infection (which they didn't understand until the late 1800s) a cancer (which they still don't understand fully) or something else--like a goiter. Cutting people open to see what was going on was often fatal, and they usually didn't understand what they were looking at, so they guessed. Well, some diseases do go away on their own, and if they were misdiagnosed in 1695, who would know the difference?
(It wasn't until the anatomist John Hunter dissected and studied about 1000 corpses in the late 18th century that some big hunks of the internal anatomy were figured out. Hunter was something of a one-off genius. It was quite a while before another anatomist picked up where he left off.)
Sorry, I just noticed this comment, which is quite distinct to the one to which I just responded. I definitely would not put Catholicism generally in that box. It's the institution that I object to. There are some Catholics that I greatly admire, including their spiritual dimension.
One you would be familiar with, being Australian, is Kristina Kenneally. I was rather anti-her while she was NSW Premier, because of the shadow of implied association with the Terrigal mafia. But I have been enormously impressed by what she has said, written and done since then. She is a devout Catholic and yet one of the most trenchant critics of the institution of the RC church, including, but by no means limited to, its opposition to female empowerment and family planning.
Another is the gay RC priest James Allison. I heard a podcast discussion with him on Encounter on Radio National a few years ago and was mightily impressed by his candour, eloquence and the warmth of his spiritual worldview. What amazes me is that he hasn't been excommunicated or at least defrocked.
Quoting andrewk
The article I referred to is about a medical specialist who was called in to adjudicate whether a particular case could be accounted for scientifically. She explains that up until that case, she had had no particular interest in such matters but then went on to research the issue and ended up writing Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World. And the reason I mentioned the article about her work, is that it does contain a great deal of documentary evidence of non-explained phenomena. So it's relatively easy nowadays to dismiss traditional religious beliefs, but these include current cases, and the processes by which they are judged are quite meticulous. Jacalyn Duffin notes that many of the clerics involved are rather jaded and suprisingly cynical, and in all cases, medical testimony was also required. So it's not a slapdash process. The annals of the Catholic Church's processes of canonisation are, for that reason, valuable archives of evidence and testimony, going back centuries.
But the idea that these cases 'mock and insult' anyone is, I think, completely groundless. I think what is being 'mocked and insulted' is your sense of propriety - the kinds of ideas that sensible people ought to entertain.
As regards Kristina Kenneally, I have always rather liked her, and Geraldine Doogue is another prominent Catholic in the media that I have respect for. The latter is even more remarkable for having had a long marriage to a passionate and outspoken atheist, for whom she arranged a non-religious funeral when he sadly died from cancer. But, there are some Catholic philosophers that I generally respect (not least Ed Feser).
Quoting Bitter Crank
I hear you. I am very reticent about what God is or isn't, or does and doesn't do, but I think heaven and hell are real, or represent something real. I have to believe that actions have consequences beyond this physical existence.
Wait, but you still believe in God? Didn't you just write that before or no? :s
Quoting TimeLine
If we should strive toward them, why be against, then?
Quoting TimeLine
Depends on what moral excellence looks like for you, and why you've set that as your goal.
Also, is this moral excellence of yours conceived as being potentially greater than, say, what some of the medieval Christian saints appear to have attained? If Christianity helps you in becoming a Saint Francis or Bonaventure, uh, what's stopping you from working toward that within an explicitly religious framework. (devil's advocate here, btw :-* )
Quoting TimeLine
Well, you're getting at a pretty big difference between philosophy and theology, here; namely, how each are applied to and in the world. Philosophy doesn't really have a component of evangelization - theology does. To me, this is one key in distinguishing between how one ought to read a Heidegger, Kant, Bitter Crank, whomever else, in contrast to an Aquinas or John Paul II, for example.
Quoting TimeLine
A problem I find with this is that you're attempting to attain moral excellence through seemingly egotistical means. It can't all be about you when morality itself requires the application of right compassion and love. Ethics require a kind of community, agreement on how to interact. If you get rid of a system, say, like the Catholic Church, some would argue that you're getting rid of a necessary step on the road toward making better sure that you are treating others as well as you are able to - which, as a result, is the only way in which one's own morality can be fostered.
Quoting TimeLine
...
Each individual creates the world upon coming into being, but the world, once made, serves each individual as a whole. Think Tower of Babel.
And was, therefore, due to medical treatment, and not to divine intervention. (However, the canonisation proceeded regardless, presumably on the basis of other cases).
Duffin comments 'Though still an atheist, I believe in miracles - wondrous things that happen for which we can find no scientific explanation.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24660240
Her book is in Fisher Library, I think I will borrow it next visit.
I who was ranting about people claiming to have specific knowledge of God, should not then make opposite pronouncements, like "God doesn't do anything", since I claim there is no specific knowledge about God is available to us. So STFU, Crank...
Life Eternal, Resurrection, Heaven, Hell, Final Judgement, etc. These words resonate in my mind, whether I like it or not. The faith I was raised with was mainline (Methodist) Christianity. But mainline Christianity is where all those specific attributes for God came from that I find troublesome. So, when I try to salvage something of my spiritual up-bringing, I fasten on to God concepts that get God out of the job of solving our infinity of problems brought to Him in prayer. So, rather than expecting God to heal the pain, maybe God only shares our pain with us. God is eternal, (that does seem to be kind of necessary) but maybe not all knowing, all powerful. God has my OK on being everywhere, too. If He is going to be the Ground of Being, I guess he needs to be all over.
Like I said, I'm not really sure what the "ground of being" means. I'm not alone. Someone asked what it means on a catholic forum. The answer is from 7 years ago, and the person writing this has since been banned. Don't know if it was for heresy or not.
Quoting TUNO, August 9, 2010 non-religious, not atheist, not theist, not agnostic
Quoting MindoverMatter2, August 13, 2010, Catholic
The thread on the Ground of Being quickly descended into bickering. Like, "BTW, there is a jewel of a little book used in many comparative religion classes, even Catholic ones, that has an elementary introduction to General Semantics and its application to religious studies. I will refer you to it if you like, Gregory I. But first, find How to Read a Book by Mortimer J Adler, and then other books might be of use to you.
For me, belief in God is so distant that it's outside of my observable universe X-)
I think the hardest part for a believer in understanding "the fence sitter" is the real pull of their belief in the first place; they need to take a position on God, for or against, which is the result of how impactful belief is in their own lives (for them, belief in God appears to be tied in importance to the belief that life is worth living, hence their perceived necessity to decide). This reaction comes from staunch hard-atheists too. Imagine my surprise when the Christian and the hard-atheist both gang up on me to tell me I'm lying to them or myself about the reality of my beliefs.
Accepting our own ignorance seems to be something widely and sorely needed these days...
I tried to explain my understanding of 'ground of being' in another thread. (The next post down of mine, on the symbolic nature of scriptures, is also relevant to this point.)
Those quotes from Franklin Merrell Wolff certainly ring true with me, but if you were to post them in a Catholic (or Protestant) forum, then sure you would expect blow-back.
Quoting TUNO, August 9, 2010 non-religious, not atheist, not theist, not agnostic
The 'maligning' is especially true - as I tried to explain earlier in this thread, this formed a large part of the conflict between the 'pistics' ('salvation by faith alone') and the early Gnostics ('you will know the truth') in the early Church. The pistics carried the day, and history was written by the victors. But every so often, other gnostics come along - Merrell Wolff was one of them - but the mainstream can't stand them.
Too many rules; analogies don't work this way; they should be simple.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, it does. Your analogy gets lumpier and lumpier the more you try to explain it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't see salvation as heaven vs. hell, I see it as actualization of personality and humanity. So there isn't greed involved. Greed signifies wanting too much of a good thing. The actualization of humanity doesn't fit that category.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So atheistic beliefs don't exist then?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Maybe I am...who knows at this point...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
My personal experience doesn't jive with that; I'd be curious what your reasons for claiming such would be.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I do have to agree to some extent here. I'm not particularly looking to discuss politics in this thread about religion, though.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But where, philosophically, do their views com from? Where are women's studies, sociology, etc., descended from philosophically?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So this must be where we differ, then. I'm uninterested in reasonable truth. I'm interested in ultimate truth.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The answer to this question is experiential, not philosophical, so I can't answer it for you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Textbook altruism, yeah. The twisting of the word via evolutionary biology, no.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The same role religion provides...funny...reminds me of my previous arguments.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Certainly I never said that.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How/Why?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Can you (or we) do this if (us) humans are inherently selfish, as you describe them?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why?
As to nihilism, I understand it as a belief that life is meaningless. So, the antithesis would be that life has meaning. The reason I bring up nihilism in this scenario is that life having meaning, to me, must be an ultimate meaning. If life having meaning means me, my loved ones, and everyone else having comforting lives and enjoying life until they die, then how is that real meaning? That, to me, is a temporal, unfulfilling excuse for meaning. It comes down to this: meaning and the infinite must be linked, in order for meaning to exist. Meaning has to point beyond the temporal in order to have any ontological and metaphysical content. Meaning can't exist temporally, or finitely. This is the gist of my argument about nihilism; to me your views on an altruistic life are what I would ironically call "soft-nihilism". It has no real meaningful content.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How? And I never described a being who doesn't care about comfort; I suggested the possibility of a being who would lay down comfort for something higher: someone who does not make comfort their ultimate concern, contrary to what you describe.
This conversation is getting boring; we're obviously speaking two different languages here.
Yes, that's a new one for me. Interesting. Things to think about.
So I take it you're not agnostic then...
Quoting Noble Dust
What is the actualization of humanity?
Quoting Noble Dust
Atheism is itself a lack of theistic beliefs. there's a difference between believing something exists, lacking a belief that something exists, and believing something does not exist. The simple analogy is designed to point this out.
Quoting Noble Dust
The difference being that religion doesn't tend to do ti via reason like humanism and social contract theory
Quoting Noble Dust
Vagabond: I can work with greed and we can achieve the ends we want by agreeing to cooperate because it's more profitable. Capitalism alleges to do this, and humanist/theistic morality does it too.
Noble Dust: As I said, this idea of working together for my sake is nothing more than a child manipulating it's parents or her friends to get what she wants for herself. It's childish. That's why I bring up altruism. True altruism, or true unconditional lovelays itself down for the other. This concept doesn't avail itself of survival, or creature comforts, or whatever.
Quoting Noble Dust
Because I don't base my moral system on God. Why is it necessary to have God in order to have morality?
Quoting Noble Dust
Yes, observation and reason are how.
Quoting Noble Dust
Because happiness is the state that I want myself and others to be in, and freedom seems to be an essential way to get there. Freedom and happiness sum up the plethora of valuable things that life has to offer.
Quoting Noble Dust
I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is essentially that the well being of your loved one's is meaningless and unfulfilling to you.
It's meaningless because meaning can't exist temporally or finitely and is therefore unfulfilling.
But then, what's the point of altruism?
It seems like your altruism is yet another layer of greed which obscures your personal desire for some kind of spiritual connection with the infinite (whatever that might happen to be). Somehow altruism gets you there; it's an arbitrary means to the ultimate end of spiritual delight. Welcome to hedonism.
Quoting Noble Dust
Define "something higher" or define "ultimate concern" and we might begin to speak the same language. If your "something higher" is an indescribable ineffable infinite force of love, truth and theosophical ecstasy, naturally that's your ultimate concern.
I have a vast and changing hierarchy of wants and values, but there is no ultimate value that renders all others meaningless by comparison. That's an effect reserved for only the most grandiose of ideologies.
That it cannot be accounted for scientifically is no evidence for it being a miracle. The number of unexplained phenomena scientists observe is much greater than the number of explained phenomena. That's why they still have jobs - to search for explanations.
There is even a word for this in medicine - idiopathic - which means 'we currently have no idea why this happens'. I have an idiopathic arthritic condition, but I don't attribute it to supernatural beings, good bad or indifferent.
You did notice that I later posted that the particular case that I was commenting on, was later declared by the Vatican, to have a natural or scientific explanation?
Furthermore, the context of such a judgement is significant in this discussion. I don't think that a Catholic would wish to claim that anything that happens for which there is no scientific explanation is therefore 'miraculous'. It might simply be unexplained, and I'm sure they're sufficiently pragmatic to understand that. But the kind of phenomena that are being discussed in these cases are not simply 'unexplained' - there's more to it than that.
What more is there to it, and how does that extra feature lend support to belief in the efficacy of supplicatory prayer?
There's research that shows that there's a section in our brain designed for religious/spiritual beliefs or atheistic philosophies. This makes sense because we also have evidence that the very early species of humans buried their dead, which shows the possibility that they might have believed in the afterlife. Thus, beliefs in God and the afterlife must have been a "need" or evolutionary advantage in some way and we still have it. My guess in why beliefs were so important for our ancestors is that it helped them feel connected together and feel like a larger group than just random individuals put together.
Today churches are part of a social network, which is crucial to the communities, but may someday become obsolete and later replaced. Religion helps people have similar goals and in having the same goals, success is usually down the road. Do you think people sacrificed their lives just for the sake of exploration and science to be the first to populate islands far away from their homeland? No, they probably did it because they were exiled, following some prophecy, or for some religious/spiritual gain.
Also, there's typically more similarities between atheists and theists than they both dare to admit. Reason why I say this is because both atheists and theists are emotionally tied to their beliefs and ideas because they are both human, which seems kind of a "duh" thing to say, but it's true. Atheists feel connected to other atheists and theists feel connected to other theists. There are social reasons why being an atheist or a theist can be an advantage in today's societies as well. If you are a theist, being in a medical field, psychological field, or some field that interacts with people a lot, you'll usually fit in very well with the people around you. However, if you are an atheist, you might not fit in and might fit better in more scientific, technological, or mathematical fields of study. Some theists usually don't fit in very scientific fields well because usually people don't want to hire a scientist that believes the world is 10,000 years old for obvious objective and emotional reasons. Also, some scientists dislike other theistic scientists because they may think the theistic scientist lacks the desire to explore the mysteries of the universe because the theistic person might just say, "Oh God did it."
Quoting WiseMoron
Fair enough but I am not at all disposed to evolutionary explanations of higher-level understanding. It reduces everything to survival.
Even today, being sociable is very important. Might even be more important than profound intelligence. Surviving isn't a logical process. Why else would so many religious folks exist and live happy lives while being so ignorant?
If you want religion to not win, which is related to this thread, you have to change humanity itself dramatically. In other words, make humans interact and socialize with each other in new ways that will replace the religious networks.
I think you've lost sight of the issue. The Vatican calls in scientific expertise to help make its judgements about what is or is not a miraculous cure. But those cases they deem miraculous, after their processes have been followed, are, by definition, supernatural - i.e. NOT amenable to scientific explanation. That is the point!
Quoting WiseMoron
I get that, but it's not about survival. Have a look at this review.
I don't understand what you mean exactly. If it's not about survival then what is it about? Also, what is it, this thread or being sociable? I thought this thread was about whether or not religion will beat atheism or not in the end of humanity's time. Survival seems pretty relevant here, at least to me.
The rules of survival of the fittest changed versus how our ancestors, cave men, have lived. However, socially working with people has remained a mandatory need for people.
Also, I don't see how that article is relevant to what I'm trying to explain.
In this case, I am inclined to give credence in what Jacalyn Duffin observed. Furthermore, I think you're illustrating what I describe as 'scientism' - that only scientific accounts have credence, that religious authorities can't have. (And that's without even mentioning the 'replication crisis'). Anyway, I trust that my acceptance of Duffin's testimony is OK with you? Or should I wait to read what I think about in Science or Nature?
Quoting WiseMoron
Fair enough. Notice that you simply take for granted that survival is the criterion for what is good. I'm not saying you're mistaken to do that, but do at least notice it. Evolutionary theory is a biological theory, it is about how species survive and evolve - so it's natural that survival is central to that. But biological survival is not actually the central point of religions. So a Christian would say that 'saving your soul' is even more important than surviving, in some respects - that, for example, if what you did in service of survival, endanged the destiny of the soul, then you ought not to do it. But that is not a matter for biology.
I signing out for the night and possibly tomorrow, thanks and bye.
That's not the way the word 'scientism' is used. 'Scientism' occurs when someone demands that non-scientific claims, such as claims about spiritual experiences, meet scientific standards. If, as you appear to be suggesting, the Vatican is claiming that phenomena occurred that contradict current science - which is a far stronger claim than just that it is not explained by current science - then they are making a claim about science, and it is not scientism to require that claims about science meet scientific standards.
OK then. So 'spiritual experiences' are not allowed to include miraculous cures. Your definition of spirituality is always carefully circumscribed so as not to encroach on what your 'scientific self' says must be the case.
You said, "So a Christian would say that 'saving your soul' is even more important than surviving, in some respects - that, for example, if what you did in service of survival, endanged the destiny of the soul, then you ought not to do it. But that is not a matter for biology." I agree, but you are overlooking something and are looking too much into individual matters. You aren't understanding what I'm trying to explain in my original post, probably because I edited it after you replied to it.
When birds look for a mate, they don't consciously think "who has the best genes or who will make strong, healthy, and attractive offspring." They just look for a pretty bird and fuck it. Humans do the same thing, sometimes (not with birds). Even though fucking is not centered to surviving in this perspective, it plays a vital role in the survivablity of a species because it's the natural way of mixing genes, getting mutations on offspring, and increasing the population. Animals and humans do and think things for whatever the reasons are, but biology and psychology analyzes them in a different level of thinking.
Okay, now let's apply this to religions. The central point of religions obviously isn't about surviving with a bunch of sweat and blood on one's body. Religions helps people socialize, which I kept saying. People group up in churches, help each other, interact with each other, offer advice to each other, talk about the bible or whatever, offer services to each other, offer ideas about the religious texts to each other, gain knowledge about the people there such as their names, and etc. So there's obviously some objective gains in joining a church besides going to heaven or giving a damn about God. These objective reasons can influence surviving in our societies greatly. For example, having a friendly teacher that goes to my church helps out my son with his math homework (I don't have a son yet).
If someone criticizes the bible heavily, s/he will most likely be socially exiled from the church and thus won't receive any support from the people in that church. This is bad, not because s/he will go to hell or w/e, but because the person no longer has access for help from the people in that church.
Anyways, I was trying to illustrate how objectively important or impactful religions and churches can be for the social networks of societies in the social level. Now back to what you've said.
You said something like if someone did something in service of surviving, such as killing and eating a cute bunny, but is against the rules of the religion to do so and will be punished severely by going to hell (or soul is devoured, w/e), then the person will not eat the bunnies and this isn't a matter of biology. Actually it kind of is because the bunny population will most likely not be endangered due to humans. Also, if the bunnies were poisonous, people wouldn't die from eating them because they don't want to lose their souls. People may use bunnies as a religious figure for ceremonies and thus may interbreed a lot of them and use as pets. Humans are so powerful in this world that simple religious ideas can influence other species, the habitats, and even humans themselves.
A more realistic example is an oracle telling young men that their fates will be hell if they stay in their homelands and that their destinies lie beyond the waters. Thus, the men will be very inclined to travel to beyond the waters, despite how dangerous it is and how low their probability of finding land is, and search for another island or piece of land out in the large ocean somewhere.
If it wasn't for that crazy oracle, no one would have populated those empty (no human zone) islands beyond the waters. This is a huge survival advantage for the people that got to the island because then they have access to more resources, food, and land. The oracle obviously wasn't thinking, "What can I say to these morons so then they travel to those islands and give us a huge survival advantage." The oracle was probably high from smoking drugs, has a psychological disorder of some kind, was trying to scare them away because the community is low in resources, or a mixture of reasons.
Philosophical systems such as religions influence groups of people's minds so greatly that it can have such a huge impact in the world that it can end up influencing the biological parts of the world as well because humans already have a lot of power over other species on this planet.
Another example that is close to modern times is when Christians were saying only gays have HIV and that it was a creation from God to punish gays. Thus, straight people were having unsafe sex frequently and were spreading HIV like wildfire. Now we have a bunch of people with HIV now.
Don't try to muddy the waters by conflating (1) a demand for evidence to support a claim that a cure contradicts current science, with (2) a demand for evidence of a spiritual experience.
Against what, exactly? I believe in God.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
There is no 'way' there is only 'your way' and no one is able to provide you with explicit answers on how to attain genuine moral consciousness. Each and every individual' existential experiences and cognition capacities differ. You can mimic your way, replicate the traditions and adhere to the expectations - just as much as an AI can absorb and reiterate information - but you will never attain the authenticity, the consciousness that will enable you to be decisive, to become aware of your flaws, to feel remorse for your failures and objectively assess and reason your emotional states that can otherwise be highly influential to your actions and decisions. You need to feel and think for yourself.
This is why priests can wear the image of morality and commit atrocities behind closed doors.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
The problem here is that you are implying that moral excellence somehow means the eradication of your ego - of the self - as though one is required to sacrifice themselves to something greater than themselves. This is what I mean about having to eradicate all the learned customs and traditions and transcend toward rational autonomy. So, is it not possible to apply the right compassion and love to the community while at the same time caring for yourself and being happy?
You cannot define love and expect through rules or codes of conduct that people will achieve that sense of goodness and peace. And when one transcends to a level of rational autonomy, striving toward moral excellence, only then are they capable of authentically loving since only then are they morally conscious. If, at that point, they reach that sense of love, than the person they choose to spend their lives with must also have the same level of autonomy and together - though they remain independent - willingly choose to develop and grow. This then extends to the community and you cannot go wrong when you are morally conscious.
You only need religion when you are incapable of thinking independently and I would have agreed wholeheartedly that if the Church fostered independent thinking - which it certainly doesn't - that it would be beneficial to the community.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
This is somewhat confusing; the Tower of Babel is a bad example since spiritually speaking, having one language - religion - provokes people to think themselves superior to the right way.
What do you think "guilty" refers to then? If the jury makes a determination of "not guilty", but you allow that this is not necessarily a true determination, and the person might actually be guilty, what does "guilty" refer to? The actual, factual, guilt or non-guilt of the defendant, according to this assumption, is something independent of the jury's judgement. So when the person is judged as "not guilty", and the person is "in fact" guilty, what does "guilty" here refer to? Is it a feeling which the person has, deep inside, this person somehow feels guilt, and this is what "guilty" refers to, that subjective feeling? Or, is it a judgement made by God, that the person is in fact guilty?
The question being, is actual or factual "guilt" a subjective feeling, or an objective judgement? If it's a subjective feeling, then if the person does not believe that they have done something wrong, there is no guilt here. But if it is an objective judgement, doesn't this require the assumption of God, to pass that judgement, and support your notion that the person whom the jury judged as not guilty is "in fact" guilty.
Quoting Bitter Crank
"Being" is the present tense of "to be". So what it is that is being referred to with "the ground of being", is that which validates, or justifies, (grounds), the notion of existing at the present time. When, in contemplation, one delves into the idea of the present in time, as a division between past time and future time, that person is faced with all sorts of unresolvable issues.
To begin with, we can see the past as radically different from the future, due to the fact that things in the past have actually occurred, and things in the future have the possibility of occurring. Because of this radical difference we are forced to accept the reality of the present. We can place the present, which is what "being" refers to, existence at the present, as the end of the past, and the beginning of the future. But if one comes to understand "being" as a real active process, in which possibilities existing in the future are becoming actualities existing in the past, (which is what existence at the present implies), then it is necessary to understand the present as the beginning of the past (when the past comes into existence through "becoming"), and the end of the future ( that same "becoming" puts an end to the future existence). The "ground of being" does not really make sense to the common intuition, just like the notion of the present as the beginning of the past, and the end of the future, does not really make sense to the common intuition.
Where was it ever said or written that the truth would be subject to your disposition?
What part of being a theist means that you must think the world is 10,000 years old? I have plenty of complaints about theists, but a lot of theists think the universe is around 13.1 billion years old (give or take 15 minutes). There are, sadly, millions of literalist inerrant-bible theists who do think that the world is 10,000 years old (if that old) -- and they would be self-excluded long before they got to their first particle lab job interview.
Quoting WiseMoron
What I'm trying to say is that some atheistic scientists are biased into thinking that theistic scientists aren't interested in finding scientific explanations for phenomenons due to their beliefs in God. Some atheistic scientists might even judge the intelligence of the theistic scientist and conclude s/he isn't good enough for the job. Also, if you don't believe in evolution, as for applying for a highly level scientist job, you probably can't past the interview. There are social problems between atheism and theism and they do influence the work force.
Clearly, a fundamentalist theist (inerrant-bible, literal interpretation) can not accept all that. NO!! they thunder, God did it in 6 days by his Word, and that was 6k - 10k years ago. Period.
So, we need to differentiate "liberal" theists (mainline Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews) from very conservative literalist evangelicals and fundamentalists who hold this peculiar view of the universe: that it was made all at once--fossils and all--in 6 days. I don't know what they do with QM or relativity. Evolution obviously is anathema to them.
It is distressing to me that so many theists are also literalists:
How did this happen?
My understanding is that this phenomena began in the late 19th/early 20th century as a reaction to the scientific thinking made possible by evolutionary theory, but also by trends in the humanities that subjected sacred (and other) texts to analysis which showed, among other things, that the Bible was compounded of narrative strands which represented varying POV and historical periods. The creation story in Genesis has several strands.
These developments shocked and horrified some relatively unsophisticated believers and a move to defend a traditional interpretation of the Bible set in. A new orthodoxy (literal interpretation of the Bible, the Bible as the inerrant word of God) coupled with routine evangelical theology begat fundamentalism. Fundamentalism and conservative politics just naturally go together, like shit and flies, and here we are with millions and millions of Christians who view evolution as a plot of godless heathens.
You believe in that which you've not defined? Bruv, that makes no sense, :s
Quoting TimeLine
Great. So if my way includes finding you, chopping you up into itty bitty little pieces, and then feasting on your flesh, I guess you'll have to just lump it and be okay with that.
This is just a relativist echo chamber. How are you supposed to discern objectively what your flaws are, or even what a flaw is, if you limit understanding of morality solely to the subjective self?
Quoting TimeLine
As opposed to feeling for other people.
Quoting TimeLine
Huh? Priests don't assert themselves as moral superiors, so this is just a non sequitur. Perhaps you'd realize this if you knew more about, in this case, the Catholic Church. Clearly just reading the Bible hasn't aided in your understanding.
Quoting TimeLine
Well, I guess reread it.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, and why is this a problem?
Quoting TimeLine
Customs and traditions like the use of language? Better eradicate if you'd like to attain this floaty "rational autonomy."
Quoting TimeLine
One cannot love oneself, so not really, no.
Quoting TimeLine
I agree. Yet, you seem to have forgotten that this also includes your own rules and codes of conduct, the ones that you've made yourself, which means that your pursuit for perfection is a fool's errand, as it stands.
Quoting TimeLine
What is rational autonomy in your estimation? Also, what is moral excellence? And, how do you define love?
Quoting TimeLine
This sounds like a bunch of poppycock to me. Love is not a sense, nor is it some carrot dangling that, once snatched, gives one a key that unlocks in them an understanding of how best to live their life.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes you can. Being conscious of the good doesn't somehow magically prohibit us then from doing ill deeds.
Quoting TimeLine
Just as the scientist is not independent when having to submit his or her research to other scientists for critique within a larger scientific community, one that has rules and regulations, expectations and requirements? Perhaps you're in favor of removing all the silly tape surrounding the means with which doctors and physicians attain their degrees, since institutions are only run for the shit-for-brains and sheeple, yes?
Quoting TimeLine
Independence is not egotism. Stop conflating the two.
Are you being purposely esoteric, dude?
I think you've somehow missed the point. Perhaps this might become more clear if you think about what you mean by "believing in the imaginary".
You seem to be saying that reverence is appropriate (or perhaps even possible?) only in intimate relationships. This raises the question of reciprocation. Intimacy just is recripocality. Are you able to love that which does not love you in return? Can you reverence that which does not reverence you in return?
For me love and reverence are not of different kinds. Love is what makes anything holy. Although the emphasis of the two notions may be somewhat different, I would say there is no love without reverence, nor any reverence without love. Holiness is a disposition.
So, regarding the Fromm quote: perhaps God was dead because he had become dead to men, and then men were dead because they had become dead to God.
Right - which is why the Church contacted Jacalyn Duffin, a haemotologist. They weren't interested in her religous views, but her scientific opinion. In this case, they decided the scientific account prevalied, and they discounted the alternative explanation. That says something, don't you think?
You're welcome BC ;-)
(I actually don't have all that much against sainthood, especially the old established saints about whom the details have grown rather fuzzy. It's the new saints with their fresh crisp details that are a problem. Dorothy Day said she didn't want to be called a saint because she didn't want to be dismissed that easily. I suspect that Saint Dorothy would perform inconvenient miracles of social organization rather than healing. One might find atheist peace activists lighting candles and praying to St. Dorothy.)
God is moral excellence and you are striving to God - that is, striving to Moral Excellence or the platonic Form of Good. When you look deep within yourself, do you see anything? Can you define time? We can semantically attach terms like love, kindness, good, patience, but who we are is an activity that only you would genuinely understand. People need to attach temporal and prescribe anthropomorphic qualities to God in order to make sense of something only faith can (and I understand the difficulty between faith and reason vis-a-vis their relationship with what could be established as justifiably accurate, but consider faith to be faith in yourself that what you feel is right).
A person who has faith in himself can learn to love himself and empower himself by aiming to reach an authentic state of rational autonomy; only then are they able to know how to truly love others. This is how moral consciousness is formed. And when one becomes morally conscious, they want to better things that are wrong in their community, politics, etc because they start to have faith in others' potential and as they seek to become better people, they strive towards moral excellence, that their love becomes universal and not restricted and so this faith in themselves is them striving toward God. They begin to positively produce - fruits of their labour - for their community and not for the applaud of religious leaders or by putting on a show of moral worthiness when nothing is going on inside or outside either. Is that not the purpose of religion?
As said by Erich Fromm, "Rational faith is rooted in productive intellectual and emotional activity." You are aware that you have this core being, this self, this "I" and you ultimately have a choice of either silencing it and living out your days being miserably conformed to your surrounds since it produces the same comfort and peace that you felt as a child with no responsibility having your parents take that responsibility for you, or you work hard toward better understanding this identity, this reality despite feeling anxious because it would mean confronting the responsibility of existence on your own, feeling threatened that you will lose everything as a reaction to the independence and aloneness.
When you look at the bigger picture of all religions, what ultimately matters is being a genuine good and loving person, so our study should be quite simply bettering ourselves. If we start an equation with the incorrect numbers, we end up with the wrong result. Start off thinking God is a man on a cloud and conform to an institution, and you will never reach a state of authenticity. This is why I do not agree with any religion, but there are part of the monotheistic religious scriptures that I agree with particularly in the NT since the wisdom within it is teaching us this 'bigger picture' or this way of bettering ourselves. The rest is all just gobbledegook.
This is why the following is wrong:
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Moral consciousness. We can freak ourselves out by thinking that without anyone telling us what to do, in that chaotic state of anarchy we would lose our minds and go on a rampage. No. We won't. That is just your amygdala in your limbic system tricking you with an impending threat and holding you into a state of anxiety so that you can justify your refusal to take a path of independence.
There is an adequate amount of information out there that would suffice in our understanding the differences between right and wrong. No one is saying eliminate the scriptures or the ten commandments. The wisdom does not automatically become eradicated without the religious institution.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Uhm, yes they can. This is the first and most important step. My favourite quote is by Aurelius:
"I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinions of himself than on the opinions of others."
There is a difference between loving yourself and being narcissistic. This man that Aurelius quotes is narcissistic. But a person who loves and cares for himself understands how to love and care for others, and as the 'self' is universal, they love the others with the same universality. A narcissistic person loves objects only that love him and goes on a rage when the opposite is shown.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
A scientist can eventually "transcend" to start formulating ideas themselves. Einstein, dude.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It is the will to continuously improve yourself that gives you the understanding. You make a mistake, you improve, and not just rely on others and what they think you should do. It is not poppycock, you're just slow on the uptake.
Yes, but the lack of reciprocal admiration may itself be the impetus that motivates one to better themselves so as to attain reciprocal regard. If a person genuinely admires someone, they would find the will to improve themselves so that the person that they revere would respond back. Intimacy is merely a mutual expression of this reverence.
Love is more universal. If I have been treated rather awfully by a person, for instance, I would still have faith in his potential to improve, even if the likelihood is minimal. That is why love is something we give to everyone without reciprocity and reverence or admiration is something we give to someone.
Quoting John
They are very similar, but I do not like the comparable reference of love to holiness as all people are capable of finding the authenticity to love. We need to normalise the act of being genuinely good and enable people to believe that they can attain it. In addition, notions of purity vis-a-vis holy often establish the Other, the impure and that is wrong and makes the positive change in people all the more harder.
Quoting John
(Y)
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
What's with the capitalization? What does any of this mean??
Quoting TimeLine
You're losing me already, fuckmesideways. Yes, I can define time, love, patience, iPhones, pewter cups, etc. What is your point?
Quoting TimeLine
I don't give a damn about what anybody feels is right. You either convince me through argument or not at all.
Alright, at this point, I really cannot proceed with addressing anything else that you've written to me. You MUST define what you hold love, rational autonomy, and moral excellence to be. If you can't do that, I can't discuss with you in any meaningful way. You are hip firing this discussion into oblivion when it doesn't have to. Please, tell me what those three things mean.
When you capitalise, you are attempting to convey a representation of accurate reality. If you don't know much about what morality is, then run along and play with your toys and stop wasting my time with one-liner questions because you have nothing else good to say.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That's just... :-|
Uhm, no, I asked whether you can define yourself.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
If you follow a religion, than you do.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Listen, I already have but you are just too slow on the uptake to understand. You just throw people questions and pretend that somehow makes you an inquisitive person.
Sorry buddy, but I have an essay due tomorrow and I have barely started, so either read or respond back with an actual response relating to what I say or go play on your iPhone and live out your life and let the adults have their discussion.
In this case the committee decided the evidence favoured a medical explanation. In other cases they decided the other way. I mentioned it to demonstrate that the science is taken into account. In light of the previous discussion your perplexity is perplexing.
The fact that the Vatican rejects some claims is no evidence at all that the accepted claims would meet scientific standards of proof. It's an easy way to build credibility to consider more cases than one intends to approve and reject some.
It's really very, very simple. If the Vatican wishes to make claims about purely spiritual things, they have no need to provide scientific evidence. If they make claims about scientific things, they need to meet scientific standards of proof. And they don't.
The point of this entire discussion was this: could there be 'evidence for the supernatural'? And that's a question to which most people - yourself conspicuously included - would answer a resounding 'no'. So I brought up the cases of apparent miraculous cures, with reference to a newspaper article, by a scientist, who was called to make a scientific judgement about an apparently miraculous cure.
So you then said they should subject all such cases to 'peer reviewed science journals'. I pointed out, look, they actually do get scientists to adjudicate these claims. In the case I was referring to, the Vatican itself declared that the evidence didn't support the claim that it was a 'miraculous cure'. So that is 'consulting scientists'. Don't you see the point? The whole issue revolves around making a judgement as to whether there was something that couldn't be explained scientifically about such and such a case. And in many of these cases, there was indeed such a factor. So in the case of 'evidence for something supernatural', then what more could you ask for? What could constitute 'evidence' of such a claim, if these cases don't constitute evidence?
Peer review and acceptance by a panel of independent scientists, not chosen by the Vatican, conducting investigations under terms set by them, not by the Vatican.
If you believe the evidence for these miracles meets that standard, why do you think none of them have been published in scientific or medical journals? If the evidence is there, there's a Nobel prize awaiting the first person that transcribes the evidence and sends it to a medical journal.
By the way, in your latest post you have reverted to the weaker claim of 'can't be explained scientifically'. I pointed out earlier that there's nothing surprising about something not being explained by science, since most things aren't, and hence lack of explanation is no reason to assume a supernatural explanation. You then said 'there's more to this than [lack of an explanation]'. Have you retreated from that claim? If not, what 'more' is there?
This is truly pathetic. They would not seek to publish evidence of such cures in scientific journals because they're supernatural. Can't you see how what you're saying is scientism? They have their own criteria, which are quite strictly vetted, but you're saying, hey unless they can publish in Nature or Science...I mean, honestly, terminating this conversation now as it's obviously entirely useless, and goodnight.
Far from being scientism, which is an attempt to colonise religion with science, what you are doing is the mirror image, trying to colonise science with religion - an activity which I hereby dub pietism.
I prescribe a dose of Stephen Jay Gould, specifically, reading about non-overlapping magisteria.
I think it's interesting that she can say that, and remain committed to atheism!
Quoting andrewk
Quoting andrewk
Quoting andrewk
Quoting andrewk
So, what I'm getting is that you think 'spirituality' is OK - because it concerns 'inner truth', which is basically private and personal - whereas claims of miraculous cures are 'snake oil', they 'mock and insult sincere religious people', and they're 'witch doctory' rather than 'genuine spirituality'. That if any of these purported 'miracle cures' were to have happened, then they should be published in a peer-reviewed science journal, and those involved would then get a Nobel.
Is that about an accurate summation of your views?
Do you think many independent scientists would care to add peer-reviewing of Vatican evidence to their already busy schedules -- not to mention the likely bad PR that they would generate, no matter what they found?
The parade of physicians willing to whore themselves out to supplement manufacturers in television ads also speaks to this fact.
>:O
The fulfillment of the lack inherent in the human condition, I'd say.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Check in with Aquinas, Tillich, Berdyaev, et. al., before you make that statement. Hell, even Whitehead, right?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
???
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I guess I assumed atheism is a fundamental position for you, and so morality would stem from it. Is this not the case? If not, why do you spend such flatteringly large spaces of text responding to a clueless philosophical dilettante like myself? Because your atheism is passive, and not a fundamental element of your mode of thinking/interfacing w/the world (soft atheism)? But then, wouldn't you just not care? Your admonition earlier of "recommending" your form of atheism reeks to me of the fundamentalist forms of religion I'm all too familiar with. Perhaps I'm not quite the agnostic sheep you think me to be.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, you said:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
which suggests some sort of self-contained value system. What is that value system? It isn't observation and reason; those aren't value systems. Explain further.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Now here, I can sing it with you a little bit. Only because I think these words are so vacuous and vague. Happiness? Freedom? Of course I want those things, I want them as much as my 9 year old niece does. Now, what exactly those things are becomes harder to define the closer you attempt to look, not unlike wave particle duality, for instance...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
First of all, your appeal to emotion here is amusing, if nothing else, given the totality of the rest of your position. Anyway, what you're missing, and what I may have failed to adequately express is the teleology of "eternity". What meaning does anything at all have within the temporal? Don't talk to me about "finding 'my' happiness", or subjective truth vs. objective. Don't talk to me about my loved-ones' happiness. They'll most-likely live the 70-some years that I'll live, given luck. So? Do their lives have Meaning, capital M? How does meaning cohere within temporality? Does it? Does meaning cohere within eternality? Ask yourself this, don't just give me the stock fundamentalist-soft-atheist doorstep fodder.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Altruism coheres meaning outside of the temporal. Is that philosophical enough for you?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I can't find any "coherence" here. Hedonism has to do with the flesh. So, the sort of "spiritual" hedonism you're speaking of (clearly not physical hedonism) can only be described as demonic within the realms of any classical teaching about spiritual realms (since you're speaking in those terms), (i.e."the holy" being a neutral, set apart experience that is equally demonic and divine). The problem is that spiritual altruism is not demonic in that sense; it's the opposite; it's divine. Altruism in it's pure form isn't demonic, so it can't be hedonistic; again, it's divine. In other words, you're talking about the spiritual realm in misused abstract terms. Altruism would only be hedonistic/demonic when it's used as a cloak; i.e. the examples I gave several pages ago...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Try reframing this in a way that doesn't belittle the concepts you describe, and I'll think of a thoughtful response.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Does that vastness, does that ever-changing hierarchy influence how you respond to my posts on this forum? Since there is, of course, no ultimate value that renders all other values meaningless by comparison in your posts here, when debating philosophical matters. Surely such grandiose ideologies would not be expressed by one so deeply entrenched in reason and empirical evidence; surely one such philosopher would not take so much time to crush such a helpless continental philosopher as the one he fearlessly debates here.
What is the inherent lack in the human condition?
Quoting Noble Dust
My point is that God and religion do not appropriately use reason to convince people to be moral. Offering someone eternal salvation as implicit incentive to behave morally, as religion is want to do, exploits their selfishness with a promise for which there is no reason to expect delivery. Humanism or social contract theory (generally, and as an example) don't make far out presumptions like heaven or hell or the existence of god in order to be persuasive, or to actually deliver on their earthly promises.
We could exhume and go through some arguments from each of your favorite theologians and religious philosophers, but unless any of them can use reason and logic to substantiate or quantify the supernatural, my objections will always be the same: no proof, no proof, no proof...
Quoting Noble Dust
Atheism is a fundamental lack of position. I cannot stress this enough.
My main goal in recommending atheism (recommending the discarding of fundamental positions on god) is to weaken the irrational foundation upholding antiquated and inequitable moral arguments. There are peripheral upshots, but that's the main one. For instance:
A preacher/pastor might argue: Without God, what reason is there to behave morally? If someone doesn't believe in God, what reason do they have to not rape my daughter? We can't trust them
What the above argument suggests is a complete lack of moral development based on empathy or common sense. It suggests that "God" and some accompanying lore and arbitrary specifics form a complete moral package which eliminates any need for rational thought as it pertains to genuine moral questions.
That said, atheism is not a fundamental position. It does mean that I don't have a fundamentally theistic position of any kind (the definition of atheism), and so outside of that I could be anything from a moral nihilist or relativist to a moral realist.
Quoting Noble Dust
Actually the values are up for grabs per my description. First we agree on what values we want our morality to promote, and then we can construct rational arguments (including those based in observation) around those values.
If we don't share any of the same values, then we won't agree on what's moral. Luckily we both likely want to go on living, and in comfort, and also want other people in the world to go on living and also in comfort (or at least free from suffering). These are modest values admittedly, compared to eternal life in paradise for everyone (and avoiding eternal torture in hell) that is...
Quoting Noble Dust
Well these terms in a vacuum don't mean a whole lot, but once we get into real world examples they give way to tangible values. Happiness and freedom can be more precisely defined the more closely we look at examples of people without them. Like fundamental particles, observation collapses their wave property. Freedom to practice one's religion is an example of how this value takes physical shape in the real world. It's something whose effect we can measure.
Quoting Noble Dust
I wasn't making an appeal to emotion, I was pointing out an implication of your own statements, and you've just reiterated it: to you everything is existentially meaningless (except altruism for some reason) because next to the infinite you view it has having infinitesimally small value. This includes the 70-some odd years of life that your loved ones will live.
The thing about meaning is that it only exists when something is around to interpret it. Me being the most relevant interpreter in this case (the meaning of my life) am luckily not infinite nor do I have access to the infinite. My life is filled with things of finite value, but I only know how to compare them to my life, which is also finite. When I weigh the value specific content in my life against the entirely of what is and has been (and hopefully will be) "my life", sometimes things prove to be highly worthwhile given they're not dwarfed by the infinite (which again, whatever it is or might be, I lack access to it and lack belief in it).
Quoting Noble Dust
Absolutely not: spaghetti coheres monsters behind Uranus: butt how? (I realize the heights of my irreverence, but satire is the only form of poetry i know!).
Quoting Noble Dust
You don't think that the psychological comfort people get from thinking "they're closer to the infinite" counts as pleasure?
I really don't know where you're getting you're information about demons and holiness from though. Not from this world I reckon...
Quoting Noble Dust
Sure my personal values influence how I respond to your posts, but I always try to let reason and accurate observation guide the content of what I do post. I do try to stick to the ideas as much as possible.
The brand of irreligion I preach isn't for everyone, sure. I advocate that people eschew superstitious beliefs in favor of beliefs grounded in observation and reason, morality included. Some people don't have the time or willingness to embark on that task though, so they can always just keep their religion and roll with the secular punches.
Quoting Noble Dust
O.K
I honestly believe that the main product which religion exports to it's consumers is psychological and emotional comfort, which comes in many forms. The emotional joy that a religious experience can bring is not too different from a sexual climax or a highly enjoyable piece of entertainment; the psychological comfort and reassurance it can bring is not to different from owning a gun with a legal permit (safety and moral absolution).
Irreligion doesn't offer eternal life or prepackaged moral beliefs, but it does keep a lot of the demonic brews on tap (which we all know taste the best).
Cheers!
Here you seem to be equating reverence with admiration. I can see that there is a certain sense in which the two ideas could be said to meet, but this was not the sense of "reverence' I had in mind. 'Admiration' seems to incorporate the idea of approval. I revere nature, but it doesn't seem right to me to say that I admire it.
Also, I could be intimate (in the sense of sharing an authentically revealing honesty and liking and care) with someone I do not find predominately admirable; I could love someone "warts and all". So, I find I cannot agree that " a mutual expression of this reverence" is a very apt definition of intimacy.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't equate holiness with purity at all. The whole gamut from purity to impurity is holy in the sense in which I am thinking of it. When it comes to human actions, though; some of those we might call impure would not be expressions of a disposition of reverence or holiness (or love) on the part of the actor, that is the difference. I am thinking here of the kinds of acts that would generally be regarded as truly evil.
Again, I do not think you can revere something like nature, just like you can't revere your partner who may be a moron or your dog either because they don't respond back to you. Reverence may have an element of 'awe' which is perhaps why you mentioned nature, but it is more about a deep respect for someone that you value with high regard and that can only be directed to a person. That person is beautiful to you not because of how they look since beauty is relative, but you are in awe because of who they are, the choices that they make and that makes you a better person.
Quoting John
One could still call two people in a relationship that play games with each other, lie to each other and compete with one another just to keep the relationship going as 'authentic' since they are mutually out of touch with reality, but authenticity is not that. The narcissism of our society enables people to validate their own existence and personal relationships through the approval of and communication to outsiders and that it just disturbing because your genuine feelings no longer matter.
If you appreciate that someone is showing you affection but does not respond back to you such as showing you that part of you that cannot see, or expose your flaws as much as provide you with a sense of wholeness and peace, the only person that you revere is yourself and you will slowly either go mad or eventually lose your soul. Reverence is directed toward someone outside of you and so when two people who can give love (someone who feels empathy and cares for the well being of all people and nature) and find that respect for themselves (by not lying and having principles that they adhere to etc), the mutual reverence between two such people falls into an infinite loop and they remain authentically connected, and they grow, make each other better, happier etc. They don't need validation and neither does their existence remain dormant or the same.
We have met people with very deep convictions of sincere heart. When we listen to them, we get swayed by their ideas. But when we repeat the new understanding to others, not having as clarity of the bases of our borrowed new convictions, we do not remove the skepticism from our audience's mind/heart. This is how the concept of faith gets distorted. Can you imagine, how swayed the people who hears an exalted master of wisdom first hand would be? We exude our personality, our sincerity. Call this the aura if you like. But the followers do not have the same deep understanding of the principals. After a few generation, the preachers, failing to enlist many followers would demand blind obedience, calling it the faith.
Faith is not the same as blind obedience. And the true wisdom is not without the base of logic. But mind's perceptions are of higher level than the sensory perceptions. We all have gone through soul-searching. This is when our perceived concepts of life fail us, and we seek help of our deeper mind. And amazingly enough, answers do pop up. This the road to wisdom. But again, it is only the reasoning of higher order.
Thus science and healthy religion are not contradictory, but complementary.
I read this somewhere: 'Four ways to recreate life energies are, sleep, laughter, music and healthy religion.' Healthy religion does reduce our worries and cravings, giving us happiness.
The difference between an honest believer and an honest skeptic should be confined to the definitions of God and spirituality. Their ways of dealing with life should be quite honorable; they both should have learned tolerance and compassion.
Let’s take a look again at the external universe. How long have we been observing our sun? I would say 200,000 years or so. Is that a long time? In relation to the theory of the big bang (which I think is speculation) – not very long. That is the ratio of 200,000 to 13,800,000,000 - which works out to be about 2 seconds in the totality of time. We have been great scientists for 2 blinks of an eye – very impressive. How much do we know about the characteristics and behavior of our sun? I would not say nothing, but I would not say very much. Let me skip to my main point – and stop belaboring our ignorance – which is – if the sun farts we will be incinerated. The sun doesn’t have to blow up, just a big solar flare. Well, you say, it hasn’t done that, yet. Your right; we are still here, but we only have been watching for the last 2 seconds. If the sun incinerates us will that affect my 401K and my next birthday party? Don’t worry; congress has passed a law prohibiting large solar flares. How smart are human beings – 2 seconds worth – smart?
My main point is that human beings are overwhelmingly insecure. From day one to our last dying breathe. There are no exceptions – all humans are insecure. Now I think the Buddha reached a level of equanimity that few attain. However, he got there on the engine of insecurity – desire. Insecurity is not a bad thing – it can be our friend – or it can be our worst nightmare – or what is most common – both. I feel insecure about these thoughts – please tell me (show me) I am wrong about our ubiquitous insecurity.
Thanks for your efforts, Timeline, but to be honest I've lost the thread of what this conversation was about beyond quibbling about different senses of 'reverence'.
I agree John; there is a lot of quibbling in this thread. The original assertion was that religion will win in the end. I think religion will persist because humans are fundamentally insecure. It is a major characteristic of who we are. At the beginning of our evolution – when we first began to talk – we asked religious questions. Think about our ancestors back 100,000 years or more in a cave around a campfire; they asked what I call the three universal questions:
1- Who am I?
2- Where did I come from?
3- Where am I going?
As soon as humans were able to think and talk; they asked these questions. Some of the first answers were like – we came from Mother Earth and we go back. We are sons and daughters of the Sun and Moon. The big trees are our father and mother. A Turtle laid eggs on land under a full moon and we became human. There are a lot of variations, but they all address the 3 universal questions. These questions still face us today - except today the campfire is a keyboard and monitor.
Who were these people who gave answers to these questions? They were the first explorers, scientists, priests, shamans – philosophers. Philosophy holds the vision of who we are; where we came from and what we will become. These are the “experts” of their time – the authority figure. These authority figures are still with us – giving expert guidance to the 3 universal questions. We here are the religious leaders – experts - of today. We, philosophers, will be supplying answers ad infinitum. Society needs us and we will be around as long as humans exist. You know the definition of expert - right? X is an unknown quantity and spurt is a drip under pressure.
I don't know woodart; I think you are over-simplifying what is a very subtle and complex question, characterizing the human situation very narrowly and in an excessively generalized way.
I might put it like this: the trouble with God is one is always in the relationship for oneself. One loves God for what he does for you, rather than just because God is worthy or wonderful; the relationship is a validation of your own worth rather than just respect for other people.
It's the nature of the "salvation": belief and ritual are always a performance to rescued from their own ignomy.
Last weekend, I attended my father's baptism. He's been aligned with Christianity for about thirty years, but not felt in a position to fully commit to the faith until recently.
In the following sermon, the pastor was speaking about how people shouldn't be be giving charity or doing what's right to be seen by others, for a reward from other people. Yet, the sermon was also at pains to point out how, all along, God was seeing all the good works your are doing.
There a deep irony and inconsistency in the whole thing. Doing good works to be seen is not on... unless it happens to for the sight of God, to follow what God commands, to be seen to be Christian by God so one gets the reward of eternal life by God.
The very doctrine of Grace is entirely self-interested: one performs the act of accepting Jesus to become superior to any other sinner, to be seen by God to be better than others and gain the favour of God.
Christianity is not honest when it claims actions do not get you into heaven. There is, in fact, only one that does: accepting Jesus, the act of practicing Christianity.
We might say God does not understand love. In the face of the evil of sin, God doesn't just give forgiveness because he understands sinners are worthwhile, he demands a commitment (accepting Jesus) to supposedly show the life of a sinner really is worthwhile (as opposed those pagan sinners who lives aren't meaningful).
What God prescibes is a performance of hierarchy. We (supposedly) must take on the form of following Jesus, so that we are not worthless like everyone else (despite the fact they are no more or less inclined to be sinful). It's not about the worth of people even if they have sinned, it's about the worth of being a Christian as opposed to not.
Rather than loving the sinner, God loves themsleves ( "I'm the authority who makes some people worth while or not" and God's followers (as far as Grace goes) love that God rewards them if they perform the dance.
In this context, niether can see the others because they are ignorant of themselves: God does not realise his authority is the beginning and ending of meaning. His followers do not realise they are, of themselves, meaningful.
Most religions (and many philosophies) share this ignorance. Any postion which claims to rescue someone from "meaninglessness" does. Consumed by the desire to obtain meaning, people cannot see themselves, and in turn cannot see others. Love becomes lost in the obsession of rescuing oneself from their perceived meaninglessness.
To the extent that what you say relates to the previous discussion of reverence, I will say this: I have been advancing the idea that having a feeling, or disposition, of reverence does not necessarily, or in the sense I mean it, even characteristically, involve the idea or feeling that we are being loved in return.
Ok John – do you mean humans are not insecure? That insecurity is not inherent in the human psyche? My statement is a generalization to all humans – I agree. However, please show me I am wrong about this generalization. Are humans secure in their biology? Humans are very fragile biologically. We are subject to disease, breaking bones, threats from other humans, threat of natural disaster, hunger, financial shortfall, psychological imbalance. The psychological threat can come from a spouse, child, friend, enemy, employer, government, law infractions; not to mention our own assessment of intellectual prowess. Is there much psychological intimidation going on in this board? When I drive on the freeway and someone suddenly cuts in front of me with a 10,000 pound truck – I feel insecure. Please tell me in simple terms how life is not insecure? Insecurity can be subtle and very complex, but I do not think we need to look in any of those areas to see how we all are threatened in common everyday life. For example – you go out to lunch and almost immediately - you know you have food poisoning. Has it ever happened to you? A restaurant worker wipes his ass and passes his bacteria on to you – it has happened to me on more than one occasion – regretfully.
Most humans never think about solar flares, earthquakes, volcanos or supernovas – but lions, tigers and bears do exist. And we are all aware of monsters under the bed or in the closets of our mind. We try to calm ourselves – mindfulness techniques work. I use mindfulness techniques everyday – why? Because I want to allay my fears – calm my mind – chase the boogeyman away. Do you know anyone that does not have boogeymen? Why do people go to the gym, eat organic food – go to church? Why are we here now on this board – because we know everything – and we just want to benevolently share it?
I think philosophers are absolutely necessary to civilization – I think we stick our fingers in the dike to hold the floodwaters back. Most people cannot even tell you how they feel, much less what they think. Why do people watch TV, listen to music, make art or write? We do things to distract ourselves, calm our minds, in additions to express and enhance our lives. The agents of religion are all around us – priests, scientists, witchdoctors, psychics, therapists – who are these people? They are all different brands of philosophers. There is an old question/joke that has been around forever – what is the oldest profession? The answer has always been prostitute. Well, ask yourself – don’t we need someone to first designate the illegality of the profession of prostitute? We first need the moralist to point the finger and say – whore! That moralist or conceiver of what is ethical - is a type of philosopher. In other words the oldest profession is philosopher – prostitute may be second. However, the sex worker is a type of therapist – they calm the nerves, body and mind – just like the philosopher.
We all live a dualistic – Walter Mitty – type of life. A man is a bank teller, but thinks about being a superhero, financial titan or whatever. Fantasy is a good thing – it is an escape from who we really are and the possibility of who we may become. We fantasize because we want out of a situation or we want to create a new one. You were just complaining of all the quibbling on this board about – reverence. You were unhappy about all the quibbling – I agreed with you. Unhappiness or dissatisfaction is a type of insecurity. We were both asking – please stop. Insecurity is not a bad thing – or at least it doesn’t have to be. Insecurity is in every corner of human existence – it is what drives religion – religion is one type of philosophy. I can see from your most recent posts that you are driven by religion and most assuredly – insecurity.
I think that since we are mortal some degree of fear is inevitable. Insecurity is a disposition; some people are more secure than others. Very often it has to do more with social conditioning
than it does with the bare fact of mortality.
Quoting woodart
I don't personally know anyone who fears nothing. I would say that people go to church (hopefully) on account of their faith ( and not out of fear). I would say they (hopefully) go to the gym and eat good food out of a healthy desire to be as healthy and optimally functioning. mentally and physically, as possible. I would say that we are all on this board for our own reasons. What is most important is to know why you are participating here; to know what you are seeking to gain from it.
Quoting woodart
Actually I wasn't complaining; I had been enjoying the exchange with Timeline. I was more explaining that I thought the conversation had devolved to become predominately an equivocation about the sense of 'reverence' and signalling that I did not have the time, energy or present inclination to participate in trying to unravel that.
John, I think you are funny – insecurity is experienced in all aspects of life – not just life and death situations. Insecurity is a disposition or emotion that can be triggered by social conditioning, social pressure, pressure from a broken water pipe or pressure we put on ourselves. For example, I go to the gym & eat organic because I want to be healthy – I don’t want to be fat & sick. The insecure thought of being fat & sick; drives me to eat right & exercise. Insecurity is a motivator/driver in all aspects of life.
Quoting John
Most people go to church to be told what to think. They want to be told what to think because they are too cowardly to think for themselves or too stupid to formulate coherent ideas or both. In addition, churches incite insecurity in their parishioners with hell fire and damnation. There is camaraderie and fellowship in church; but its first job is to dictate a religious formula. This is a prime example of the carrot and stick methodology. The social pressure to conform to a ridged system is enormous – talk about insecurity!
Quoting John
I am here to “know thyself”. I am here for the same reason I go to the gym – I want to strengthen my mental muscles. I am here for entertainment. I am here to see what other people think. I am here to learn what I can. I am here to refine my thinking. I am here to know my heart’s desire. I am here to observe wisdom in all its myriad shapes and sizes. I am here to continue building a coherent philosophy for myself and share what little I have to offer. I am here to contribute to civilization in that which I think best. I am here to discover new things. I am here for adventure. I am here to add my voice to the chorus of the human song. I am here to add my pennies to the bank of human knowledge.
Quoting John
Quoting John
John you chose a word which I think most aptly describes you – equivocation. You have made several statements and then equivocated on them. You portray a sense of religious righteousness which reeks of insecurity, but then deny that it is everywhere. I wish you Godspeed and hope you discover what you are looking for.
This is a gross generalization. By definition, salvation means equality; it has nothing to do with superiority over others. Your point here is that classic psychologization of religion that's so painfully inaccurate in an atheistic ethos.
Sure, but all the examples you give here are due to social conditioning I would say.
Quoting woodart
And just how is it that you have earned the right to speak for most people? And you accuse me of righteousness! :-} :s >:O
Quoting woodart
Well I think that's your (mis)interpretation. All I've been advocating is a disposition of reverence towards life: including nature and humanity. I started out referring to it as a "sense of the holy". If you still disagree then perhaps you could quote some passages where you think I equivocate or display "a sense of righteousness which reeks of insecurity", and explain what it is about the words that leads you to think those things.
Otherwise I am just going to continue to think that your imputation of righteousness and insecurity to others is nothing more than a projection of your own state of mind, a projection which leads you to grossly generalize and misunderstand the human situation and other people, and to produce litanies of tedious and somewhat patronizing platitudes. I suppose you probably mean well...perhaps you need to read some actual philosophers, or read them again if you already have?
I always think apophatic concepts are best understood analogically. Load up a few different news sources for the best answer to your question here.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is certainly how religion itself often gets presented. I don't argue with you there at all. But the problem, for me, and probably the reason I'm bothering to slag on through this excruciating discussion, is that I think there's a huge miscommunication through religion, and, conversely, through the subsequent critiques of religion that follow. (My grammar there is deliberate, though maybe clunky. Re-read if necessary). Sure, religion itself in practice gives this incentive for moral behavior, but that's the exact opposite of what is meant within sacred teachings themselves. That's the irony. That's where a mystical approach to religion comes into play. What I always see in the classic "critique of Christianity from a former Christian" is this sheer obsession with hypocrisy. It's almost like there's an emotional wound there....hmmm...wonder if that impedes philosophical reason at all...
But, from a strictly philosophical perspective, it's only the ideas that hold water, right? We should be assessing the ideas themselves, not the failed practices, or psychologizing away the history of the religion.
I won't bother saying more here, I think I've already overstayed my welcome in this thread.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I could say the same to you: "We could exhume and go through some arguments from each of your favorite atheistic philosophers, but unless any of them can use intuition and spiritual practice to substantiate or qualify the natural, my objections will always be the same: only proof, only proof, only proof..."
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But where do these concepts come from, within the history of thought?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Not to be trite, but have you tried out this line of reasoning on the political world stage? How might it go if it were presented, do you think?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Aside from trying to find the subject of this sentence, I'm scrambling to understand how you came to this conclusion (the conclusion I can interpret, anyway) about anything I said.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Oh? Show your work, please...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I do not.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
From various readings about the history of Christianity form folks like Tillich, Berdyaev, etc. Tillich's A History of Christian Thought is invaluable, if you find it to be an interesting topic. I'm not sure you do though? But then I'm not sure why this is such an interesting topic for you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How do you reckon morality to be something included within observation and reason? I'm pretty sure I brought this up before.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This seems to be pure conjecture, or maybe pure experience, and I can only respond with my own experience. Which is that I disagree. My experiences of religious experience, sexual pleasure, and entertainment are all very distinctly categorizable, separate phenomenons within my set of experiences.
None whatever. Every human being that is born enjoys a perfectly stable and secure family relationship, in well-appointed dwellings with ample nourishment. They all are educated according to their various capacities so as to reach the optimal mode of life on reaching maturity, at which time they are all gainfully employed to the best of their abilities, whilst enjoying peaceful and wholesome recreational activities in pleasant sorroundings and not wanting for any comfort. As they grow old and mature, they come to terms with the transient nature of their life, so that by the time of their death, mostly at the end of a long and fruitful life, they are reconciled to their end, and wish no more than to pass away sorrounded by their loved ones in peace. How could such a life be lacking in any way?
Bless our Scientistic Overlords for their bountiful worldly blessings.
John – I respectfully disagree. And I think in this one statement we can see your equivocation. Does a broken water pipe make you insecure? Does a broken water pipe come from social conditioning? No, a broken water pipe has little or nothing to do with our social world. It is a force of nature that we have no control over. It just happens and when it does we become insecure. I do generalize about the infinite forces of nature, that affect us all, that make us nervous. We need insecurity, as much as we need air, to propel and motivate us to find solutions to our problems. I would also like to add that I equivocate too because I am insecure. Insecurity is our friend – our coach.
Quoting John
I am righteous in my own eyes, John, why would I want to be otherwise? We are all seeking answers and righteousness because we are all insecure. That’s why I am here on this forum and I presume the same for you and everyone else. I think it is worthy to question yourself and others in an attempt to refine ones thinking. People go to church, which is a type of therapy, to get answer to difficult questions. We go to a psychotherapist to help realign our thinking – how is a church any different? We need therapy because we are not sure – insecurity. We are all insecure, but we make different choices in how we address this universal problem.
Quoting John
I totally agree with your concept of a "sense of the holy". I think consciousness is a divine gift. I cannot prove this statement, but I can feel it. That is enough for me. I believe with this gift we are obligated to examine ourselves, universe – everything. When I am mindful, I feel my holiness and what has been given me – I am profoundly grateful. I am thankful for my insignificance and insecurity because it leads me to holy thoughts – I am thankful.
I doubt that a person who had not been conditioned by their social circumstances to rely on piped water would be made to feel insecure by a broken water pipe.water. In the broadest sense in which you now seem to be speaking of insecurity, then sure we are all more or less insecure one way or another because of our reliance on whatever conditions we have come to rely upon of our physical livelihood, safety and comfort.But whatever these set of conditions are is generally determined by our social circumstances, that is by just how we live.
Quoting woodart
Granting that we are all insecure to some degree about some things, I can't see what advantage treating this universal fact as central could have for philosophical inquiry. We can never free ourselves from all fear. I do agree that it is a good idea to try to become free from concerns about inconsequential anxieties, for example how we appear to others, what others think about us, and so on. But I think that is a bit of a side issue, taking care of which perhaps just frees us up to a greater extent than otherwise for more fruitful inquiries.
Quoting woodart
Yes, that life is holy and deserving of reverence is not a proposition that needs to, or even can be, proven.Thinking and feeling that way is simply the most affirmational, and hence joyous, disposition. But if we are driven to find rational explanations, then we need to find an acceptable mode or system of thought that supports the feeling.
I do not think you clearly hear what I am saying about insecurity. Whether we address our fears and concerns in therapy, church or wherever is not my main point. I am saying that insecurity drives our philosophical inquiry. I am saying that insecurity, in whatever form it manifests, is our motivation to reason in therapy, attend a church or for some – have a holy thought. Each individual reacts to their insecurity in their own way. You seem to be suggesting that I should want to free of my insecurity and anxieties. I don’t think it is possible – and – I do not want to free of it. I think it is a blessing.
Quoting John
I was very clear of the “acceptable mode or system of thought that supports the feeling” of holiness. For me it is profound sense of insignificance and insecurity in my universe. I arrive at this rational position, to me, by way of observation and reasoning. I have given some clear reasons why I think this way. I am not asking that you accept my reasons – I am merely stating them. I say what is true for me; I also observe others and make assessments of them. I hear that you are not comfortable with my thoughts on insecurity and perhaps your insignificant-ness – but that does not change my point of view. In fact, it further reinforces it. These are my reasons; do you understand my point of view? I have additional reasons to support my spiritual point of view. I do not think they are conventional and/or widely accepted. I would be glad to share them with you; if you are inclined to hear them?
So you're saying that the lack inherent in the human condition is freedom and freedom from suffering? (that's what I gather from the news, feel free to correct me). I guess my outlook on morality really does directly address that problem then...
Quoting Noble Dust
I have a hard time knowing "what is meant within sacred teachings themselves". You seem to say that the true meaning of religion is altruism, but you haven't explained why. What makes one Christian teaching sacred and another not sacred?
Quoting Noble Dust
Ah but there is little to no philosophy of atheism, certainly no brand to which I ascribe "belief". By criticizing and rejecting theological claims, I become a de-facto atheist. We could go through my favorite critics of theism and their criticisms, but they don't need to prove the natural (nature is self-evident) they just debunk claims of the supernatural.
Quoting Noble Dust
Which concepts? Empathy and common sense? You tell me...
Quoting Noble Dust
It works extremely persuasively. It's persuasive because it finds common wants and value between two negotiators and uses reason and logic to search for mutually beneficial means of cooperation.
Turns out comfort and freedom from suffering are extremely persuasive.
Quoting Noble Dust
You want me to show my work that meaning is only something that exists when a mind is around to interpret it?
You're the one that suggested things like comfort and freedom have no meaning (capital M) compared to "eternality"
" Anyway, what you're missing, and what I may have failed to adequately express is the teleology of "eternity". What meaning does anything at all have within the temporal? Don't talk to me about "finding 'my' happiness", or subjective truth vs. objective. Don't talk to me about my loved-ones' happiness. They'll most-likely live the 70-some years that I'll live, given luck. So? Do their lives have Meaning, capital M? How does meaning cohere within temporality? Does it? Does meaning cohere within eternality? Ask yourself this, don't just give me the stock fundamentalist-soft-atheist doorstep fodder."
Can you show your work?
Quoting Noble Dust
So the idea that you're getting closer to the infinite by being altruistic doesn't please you? Why do you hold it as valuable to do so then?
Quoting Noble Dust
And I've clarified it before too. Morality can use observation and reason as a tool to get better. Reason and observation aren't themselves morality.
Quoting Noble Dust
I realize that your experience defines religion for you. That's the way of it. What's sacred to you is a matter of the various articles of faith which comprise your beliefs. How you experience it is how you experience it, and that's fine. I'm just here to lay down some reflective pylons to keep people from trampling the flowers as they begin to flail in inspiration of their own personal religious beliefs.
In the law, a person is "guilty" of a crime when a court or jury determines the person has committed a crime (or confesses to a crime). A person is "not guilty" of a crime if a court or jury determines that it has not been established "beyond a reasonable doubt" the person committed a crime. There is no recourse to God in the law. There is only recourse to higher courts. The law is a system in itself.
My question was, what do you refer to when you say that the person "may in fact be guilty" when the court has determined that the person is not guilty?
Here's your post:
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Since it appears like a judgement is necessary in order that the person is actually guilty, and the court has not judged the person as guilty, yet you state that most people would say that the person is "in fact" guilty, then don't you think that most people assume God makes this judgement?
Interesting points MU.
Certainly, to a theist that would be a sensible interpretation. To a non-theist, perhaps an alternative - and equally workable in my view - interpretation is that the accused themself makes this judgement. So a person is 'in fact guilty' if the person recalls having committed the crime.
I think both absolute-truthists and non-absolute-truthists could accept that meaning. Where they would part company is in the case of somebody with a false memory, or no memory, of the alleged crime.
"Guilty" of committing a crime. I think most would say that a person who actually committed a crime is guilty of committing a crime, regardless of whether a jury found that person to be "not guilty" because the jury didn't think the state met burden of establishing that the person did so beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think God is required in order to determine whether the crime actually is/was committed, however.
Yes I mentioned this possibility in my reply to Cicero, you can see it in the quote above. This would be what I called a subjective feeling of guilt. The person knows, deep inside, that what was done was wrong, and feels guilty. The problem which this leads to, as I mentioned, is that if the person doesn't know that what was done was something wrong, we still won't to be able to say that the person is "in fact" guilty, because the person will not believe that a crime was committed. Then we have no principle whereby we can say that the person is "in fact" guilty.
OK, so let's assume that a crime was committed, let's say a theft. We know that the theft occurred from the evidence, a window was broken and the valuables were stolen. No one has been found guilty by neither judge nor jury. Let's say that the person who took the valuables had a reason to steal, the other person owed him money, or he needed to get even with that person for some other reason. So this person who took the valuables feels justified, and does not feel guilt whatsoever.
Now, you and I, andrewk, and whoever might read this, will probably want to judge the person as guilty of theft. But let's assume that absolutely no one, except the thief himself knows what happened. Doesn't it seem like the thief is "in fact" guilty? But, by what principle is this person guilty? There has been no judgement made by a court, nor by any human being, and the person feels no guilt. How can we say that there is any guilt here unless we assume that the judgement is made by God?
This highlights again the lack of precision of natural language.
I was using 'guilty of the crime' with the meaning of 'had done the crime', whereas you were using it with the sense of 'felt bad about having done the crime'. Etymologically, yours may be more accurate, as I suppose that guilty derives from a root of 'feeling guilt', which is feeling bad about our actions.
I think my meaning may be closer to common use though. When we say that a convicted person is actually innocent, we mean that they did not do the alleged act, not that they don't feel bad about it. Consider somebody that is convicted of the crime of breaking an unjust law. They may be a moral hero in our eyes for standing up to injustice, and may be in their own too. I would not say that Daniel Ellsberg was 'not guilty of breaking official secrecy laws' but I would say that I greatly admire him for doing so.
Isn't that because intent is central to guilt? If a person kills another because he or she is in a florid state of psychosis and thinks the other is an evil alien then that person will often be found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. If a person commits an act with right intention which has bad consequences, they may or may not be guilty, depending on circumstances. I find it hard to see many circumstances in which a person is 'unknowingly guilty' of a crime, but then, that presumes that persons are always sufficiently self-aware and well-informed to make that judgement themselves.
As for 'God's judgement' - bear in mind, in Buddhist ethical philosophy is in many respects quite similar to the Christian, with the cardinal difference that judgement is not passed by God, but that persons suffer the consequences of their evil actions as a consequence of karma.
Well, I have a hard time saying whether freedom is inherent, or an inherent lack in humanity. A lack of freedom from suffering (i.e....suffering), would be more of a component, or a result of the lack in the human condition. In my mind, when I say "the lack inherent in the human condition", it doesn't actually signify anything specific, but quite literally, just lack. Emptiness, poverty...etc. That's why I said it's an apophatic idea. I think it's possible to acknowledge a lack, without clearly defining what it's a lack of. With physical poverty, or the emptiness of a bowl, for instance, we can signify what could fill those states of lack. That's a nice analogy, but it doesn't follow that we therefore can signify what should fill the lack in the human condition. But the emptiness, the poverty, is measurably there. But this is why I call it apophatic; in theology, an apophatic conception is a negative way of obtaining knowledge, or truth. It doesn't signify meaninglessness (this most likely does not resonate with you from what you've stated about your views, I'm just explaining mine, and my language). This sort of lack is a principle in the psychology of depression, for instance, as I understand it. There are times where depression doesn't seem to have a real cause other than a chemical imbalance. There's simply a lack, so to speak. The cause may become more clear later on, or not.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Studying them would be a good place to start. This is one of the paths of thought that I'm currently hoping to embark on soon. But yes, it's often hard to know how to interpret them.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't really think either of those things, so either you misinterpreted what I said, or I didn't say it well; I don't have the patience to comb back through the debate. Actually, I don't want to make any claim about what the true meaning of religion might be, as a whole; there's definitely no such thing. Each religion contains different meanings (meanings of text, of tradition, of ritual), all of which may be exoteric, esoteric, lost to history, and all of which are constantly evolving, devolving, or going extinct, or being revived...
What do you mean "What makes one Christian teaching sacred and another not sacred"? It would depend on your interpretation of Christianity.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Really?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'm absolutely no expert at all, but I feel like there's enough particle/wave physics, and theoretical physics out there to at least ask the question of whether nature is self-evident. It's a topic I personally am curious to explore more.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But who out there is actually implementing this on the political world stage? My question was a bit sarcastic, but that's what I was getting at.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Please forgive my tone there; I don't think I was quite in my right mind when I made that post. It's a tendency of mine. But yes, I would love to hear your reasons for that statement.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I can see how you would interpret this paragraph as a suggesting that "comfort and freedom have no meaning (capital M) compared to 'eternality'", but that is not at all what I meant there. I was trying to distinguish the temporal from the eternal, and I was suggesting that Meaning (capital M) can only exist within the eternal. I think it follows that any representation of meaning (for instance, comfort, etc), that exists within the temporal only has value as it relates to Meaning within the eternal. Think of it like this: imagine physical reality as an objectivization of spirit, or the eternal (if that's hard to picture, think of water changing to ice; the element is the same, but the form changes. Now the form is "dead" in the sense that it doesn't flow. Water flows, but ice is stationary. Try to take this analogy outside it's physical constraints and imagine how the physical world could be seen as "dead" or stationary, despite the fact that it isn't in fact so, within it's own rules). Out of physical reality grows consciousness, out of consciousness grows moral concepts, and a mental world in which we talk about the problems of Meaning, or meaning. We can talk about Meaning and meaning if and only if the physical world is an objectivization of the eternal; then Meaning has content; Meaning has no content within the temporal if there's no reference to the eternal. Why? Because the temporal is TEMPORAL. It will end. Meaning will end, and so it's not meaning at all; it's just a willful semblance of something like meaning, to tide us over before our temporal lives end. Comfort, being nice to each other, gourmet food, social justice, social equality, sex. All nice lowercase truths to make us feel like our lives have meaning, before they end in nothingness. Or, before they end, and our participation with eternity begins? My philosophy is kind of all or nothing, if you haven't noticed: Universal Salvation, or Nihilism. Nothing else makes sense to me. What do you think? Do you think a temporal life that ends in nothingness is worth living?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, I wouldn't use the word "pleasure" to describe the spiritual journey. Any sort of "pleasure" derived from it is a gift given freely and freely received through the process of the journey; whereas "pleasure" to me denotes something I desire to possess; sexual pleasure, drunkenness, romance, social acceptance...and by the way, I'm not trying to make the typical distinction here in saying that those things are "evil" because they're "of the world" or something. But I absolutely think of those things as pleasures that we actively seek to possess, whereas spiritual "ecstasy", if you will, is a passive, directly participatory experience. Actively seeking to possess spiritual knowledge or experience is exactly the thing that prevents you from getting there. It's apophatic. The same goes for creativity. This elusive thing is the thing that sex and acceptance and drunkenness and physical comfort are striving for. I'm speaking from experience here, on both sides of that coin...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I can roll with that. Perhaps I missed where you clarified that.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I wasn't just talking about religious experience in that paragraph, though. I want to be less critical in my tone than I have been in the past in this discussion, but I can't help but feel like this is some classic atheistic "soft-preaching" here; proselytizing the idea that "everyone's religious experience is different and equally valid [but also total bullshit, we just know we're not alowed to say that just yet]". That's honestly how I take this sort of sentiment, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I sincerely hope I'm wrong on that.
For instance, what else is there in religious experience other than flailing in "inspiration of [one's] own personal religious beliefs"? (flailing clearly being a derogatory word that suggests the implausibility of religious experience). So, to my point, I'm not really sure what you're getting at, here. Is religious experience acceptable or condemnable to you? Religious "experience" seems maybe ok, but "flailing" about religiously (whatever that is), is not? What exactly are these precious flowers you speak of?
I would say we're each born with a uniquely shaped hole (or it grows into a unique shape). Want is present in the human condition in general, regardless of station, but the form it takes can vary greatly from person to person. How each of us goes about filling this hole (even if filling it is only temporary) basically encapsulates what I take to outline the meaning of (one's) life. Finding happiness through love or pleasure or scientific or spiritual enlightenment are all expressions of the same basic principle: human want. We can only apophatically approach or discern these wants individually; subjectively. One person can say that material delights are not a sufficient source for happiness, and another can say that spiritual pursuits are also insufficient producers of happiness.
Quoting Noble Dust
What I really meant was that within each religion there is a vast set of doctrines that different groups within the religion all claim to be more important than the other. I know what I would pick as the most sacred parts of various religious doctrines were I a believer (the doctrines/verses that correlate with my moral views), but I would inevitably be cherry-picking my own basket. This is a good function of religion though (religion has some capacity to adapt as is by virtue of what religious groups choose to focus on) because it allows religion to somewhat change with the evolving needs and moral views of it's adherents.
In my youth I was over-exposed to several competing Christian sects, the result is that nothing emerged for me as sacred between them. The thing they all had in common though was damnation of the others. The concept of damnation is what most repels me from religion as a whole.
Quoting Noble Dust
There's really no philosophy of atheism (any good philosophy that is) because there's nothing to philosophize. Theology is philosophy about god, so atheist philosophy would be about "absence of gods"?
Day 1: God is dead. The priests are running amok. I've contracted syphilis. *cough*...
Atheist philosophy is relegated to the rejection of theological and religious belief/philosophy. I too am quite interested in theoretical physics, but unless theoretical physics (the scientific kind) is used to substantiate theistic belief, we need not employ it for a rebuke. Whether or not the presupposed nature of things we interact with is accurate is one thing (the nature of the material world), but presupposing the nature of something that we don't (unambiguously) interact with is something else altogether (the nature of god).
If we cannot even be sure about the former, imagine the strain required to rationalize the latter.
Quoting Noble Dust
The moral framework I've thrust in this thread is really quite basic. It's main feature is an outline of morality itself: standards and strategies designed to promote human welfare (based on shared human values). This differs from some other moral frameworks which suppose that morality represents a set of unchanging and absolute standards (which tend to come from the will of a perfect creator god). Going further to emphasize the use of empiricism, logic, (and even technology), to alter and improve our existing moral stratagems toward more successful ends basically describes humanism. On the world stage this moral platform is quite persuasive. Politics as a whole is meant to be about human welfare, so let's just say that secular humanism is one of the forces which inform that purpose.
Quoting Noble Dust
Meaning requires interpretation, and interpretation requires awareness. In a nut shell.
Quoting Noble Dust
Isn't a temporal life better than no life at all? There's some value there; of course it's infinitesimal next to the infinite. I have a basic question though:
Why is the value of meaning dependent on the value of Meaning?. You said it follows, but from what? Can't meaning exist independent of it's capital cousin?
Quoting Noble Dust
There's "valid" from the "does it lead to happiness" perspective, and then there's "valid" from the perspective of science and history. Not all religious beliefs are invalid as sources of happiness (but many are. See: Scientology for examples) and not all religious beliefs are irrational (Jesus' do unto others works whether or not god exists). Beliefs pertaining to the supernatural however are as yet not scientifically or empirically or even theoretically substantiated.
Religious flailing comes in many forms. Sometimes it's spiritual inspiration, sometimes it's dogma in a discussion (not to imply anything), sometimes it's actual flailing on the floor (see: modern evangelical revivalists), and sometimes it's the (to me) arbitrary and irrational moral and political views and actions which leak out of the religious world and into the secular world. When the puritanical abolitionists banned booze in America, that was religious flailing. When we socially and physically persecute homosexuals on religious grounds, that's religious flailing. When one religious person condemns another for not sharing their religion, that's religious flailing. The flowers are the lives, rights, and well-being of innocent individuals who don't deserve the treatment that religion can sometimes prescribe or otherwise render.
I condemn some religious experiences, namely the ones which cause harm to self/others. If a religious person holds beliefs which make them happy without contributing to any harm, why should I expect or want reason/empirical science to dissuade them? Why should I bother?
What you described though is "... that the accused themself makes this judgement. So a person is 'in fact guilty' if the person recalls having committed the crime." In this scenario, the person must recall committing "the crime", and therefore the guilt is due to knowing oneself to have committed a crime. That's why I called it a subjective guilt, it is a judgement by oneself, that I have done something wrong. The person will necessarily feel bad about it, if only for the moment, because to make the judgement "I have done wrong" is itself a bad feeling.
Where the issue is, is that the person who is "in fact guilty" of the crime, may not believe that a crime was committed. The other people see evidence of a crime, and believe a crime was committed, so they believe that someone is guilty. The person whom we are assuming is "in fact guilty", does not believe that a crime was committed, and does not judge oneself as guilty.
Quoting andrewk
The issue here, is a slightly different issues, so I'm going to stay away from it, so as not to confuse things.
Quoting Wayfarer
We might have to ask Ciceronianus about that one, but I don't think that intent is central to guilt, if "intent" refers to being inclined toward what one knows is wrong, because as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So if a person commits a crime without intending to commit a crime, that person will still be just as guilty. Insanity is a different issue.
This question is relevant to the concept of "original sin". The myth, as commonly told, states that Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. But it is also only by eating the fruit that they are said to gain the knowledge of good and evil. So there is some inconsistency, or paradox here, because they cannot know that obeying or disobeying God is good or bad, until they eat the fruit. If they obtain guilt from eating the fruit, as the story goes, then guilt must be independent from the intent to do an act known to be wrong, because it is impossible that they intended to do what they knew was wrong, when they could not know the difference between right and wrong.
So we might class "intent" as something other than the intent to do what is known to be good or bad. In this way an intentional act would be an act which one carried out for a purpose, with no necessity of deciding whether the act was good or bad. Any purposeful act can be judged for guilt regardless of whether the person knows that the act is good or bad. The random act of an insane person appears to have no purpose, and therefore no intent. But this requires that an act be judged for the presence of intent in order that the person be guilty. So in our example, of the person who is not judged by the court to be guilty, but is "in fact guilty", this person would have to be judged by God for the presence of intent.
If we assume a person is guilty of a crime when that person commits a crime, and we assume that person committed a crime, then the person is necessarily guilty of a crime. It's possible nobody but the person who committed a crime is aware that a crime was committed, but it doesn't follow in that case that a crime was not committed or that the person is not guilty of a crime.
They won't necessarily feel bad about it. When I say they 'recall having committed the crime' I mean they recall having done the alleged act, not that they also judge the act to be bad. They may even, as in Ellsberg's case, judge the act to be good.
As I pointed out above, you and I are using the key words differently. Replace 'crime' by 'act' and 'guilty of' by 'actually did' and you will have an accurate translation of my statement from my personal language to yours.
Gandhi is another example that comes to mind. In my language he 'was guilty of the crime of burning a racial identity card' and I revere him for that and no doubt he felt good about having done it. In your language he 'performed the act of burning a racial identity card'.
There is no difference in meaning. Only in the words used to convey the meaning.
The described scenario is that many people are aware that a crime was committed, because of the evidence. So the deduction is that there is a person responsible for the crime. Therefore it is assumed that there is a person who is "in fact guilty". We do not know who committed the crime. The person who committed the crime does not believe it was a crime. How is that person "in fact" guilty?
Quoting andrewk
How is that person guilty then? "Guilt" implies a judgement of wrongdoing. If the person believes that what was done was good, there is no judgement of wrongdoing, and therefore no guilt. Your claim was "a person is 'in fact guilty' if the person recalls having committed the crime." But if the person recalls the act as good, and therefore recalls committing a good act, then there is no guilt, even if we might judge the act as a bad act.
Quoting andrewk
We cannot translate "guilty" to "actually did", because "guilty" implies a judgement of wrongdoing, and "actually did" does not. To make this translation you remove the essence of "guilty", which is the judgement of wrongdoing, and you are left with something completely different from what we are discussing, and that is "guilty". There is no point in "translating" the proposition into another proposition with a completely different meaning, because then we would be discussing something completely different. And besides, that is not a proper translation.
Quoting andrewk
I don't see your point here. Are you suggesting that "guilty" does not necessarily imply a judgement of wrongdoing? Do you ever actually use "guilty" this way? Do you ever say that someone is guilty without implying that there has been a judgement of wrongdoing, either by yourself, or by someone else? If what you are insisting on, is that we can replace "guilty" with "actually did", without a difference of meaning, then this could only be true if you are using "guilty" in a different way from me. This would just be an equivocation to avoid the issue. What's the use in that?
The point I've been trying to make is that what is the case in the law (e.g., whether a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime) isn't necessarily what people commonly believe is the case. As far as I know, that's the only claim I've been making. I think people commonly believe that a person is guilty of a crime if the person commits the crime and so is responsible for it. In the law, though it's entirely possible that a person may be found not guilty of a crime and yet have committed it.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking why people believe that someone who has committed a crime is guilty of committing a crime?
I agree on want being present in the human condition in general. But as far as how we fill the hole encapsulating our meaning in life, I revert back to Tillich's faith. That sound's like ultimate concern to me; the problem is that you're equivocating it with something absolute. The fact that you label our own individual search as the meaning of life labels that search as absolute. If it's not absolute, then it's easily over-turned. Which I think it is. Any ascribing of a meaning to life has to be either absolute (capital M Meaning), or not a real meaning. I don't know how else to phrase that. An ascribing of meaning that is not absolute is always, ultimately, only tentative. So your description of the meaning of life here would only be tentative. How can it be otherwise if it's based purely subjectively? This to me is an equivocation of objectivity with subjectivity. "The meaning of (one's) life" is an objectivity, but you're assigning it subjectively. The Meaning (capital M) should rather be the objective, while the subjective is you or I.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, and I don't think cherry picking is a problem; the phrase just has a negative connotation. I "cherry pick" when I accept Jesus's unconditional love as something I want to emulate, and something I consider deeply True. And then I continue cherry picking when I reject the notion that Scripture is innerant, or that hell exists. I'm not taking the convenient bits, I'm taking the bits that resonate with the part of me that seeks the truth.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I fully agree. My first post on this forum was on that very topic. My OP here is a good reference point for a lot of my thinking:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/762/otherness-forgiveness-and-the-cycle-of-human-oppression/p1
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But you and other atheists philosophize, and you do so from your position of atheism. I really don't see how you can keep saying otherwise. I get that atheism is, formally, a lack of belief in God, that's obvious. But to then say you have no atheistic philosophy is nonsensical. Just because it's a simple lack of belief does not mean you have no philosophical beliefs that relate to your stance of atheism. Lack of belief in God has to profoundly affect how you do philosophy, which it clearly does.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Once you've glimpsed the infinite, the eternal, it's hard to be satisfied with just the temporal.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I explained that in my description of physical reality being an objectivization of spirit. There would be no meaning without Meaning, in this scenario. Lowercase meaning is descended from Meaning.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Something I've been trying to get at all along here, is where does your conception of morality stem from? Historically, a lot of the moral framework we all live within is descended from Christianity. That's why I asked about your flowers. How do you even conceive of "lives, rights, and well-being of innocent individuals" as having value or meaning? Why do those things matter? Why do they matter within a temporal life? Those concepts were originally predicated on the eternal, not the temporal. Ripped from an eternal framework and placed within a temporal one, they have no actual content.
Yes. That is how I use the term. I understand that it is not how you use it. Are you familiar with David Chalmers' very useful notion of a Verbal Dispute? That is what this is.
What I'm asking is how is it possible that the person who was found not-guilty by the court is "in fact guilty"? By whose judgement is that person guilty?
Quoting andrewk
I'm sorry, I didn't recognize your use of "guilty". But you should not blame me for this. I've never come across that use before, and it's not in my dictionary (check dictionary.com for example). Did you just create this new use for the sake of argument? I'm sure that if you go around making up your own definitions, known only to you, just for the sake of argument, you will encounter many Verbal Disputes. In this case, the blame is on you.
By the way, I don't think my use is that unusual. I place very little credibility on dictionaries for philosophical discussions, but since you have referenced one it may help for you to consider the first definition under item 2 in this Oxford Dictionary definition: 'having done something illegal'. Or, if one prefers Cambridge, we have here: 'Responsible for breaking a law'. That law could be that one has to report any sightings of Jews to the Gestapo, and a saint could be guilty of breaking that law (and some were).
That definition doesn't support your claimed usage. First, it qualifies "illegal", later in the sentence as "something bad", and second, even if it just said "something illegal", that would require the same type of judgement of the act, that it was "in fact" illegal. So this would just change the need of having the action judged in relation to some moral standard, to a need to have it judged in relation to some legal standard.
To your credit though, when I reflect, I recognize a sort of sloppy, metaphorical use of "guilty", where someone might say "yes I am guilty of that", signifying "I did that", even if it was a good act. But that's in jest, and if this is the usage you are looking at, then we're not talking about the same thing, because I am talking about the required judgement that an act is bad, wrong, or illegal. So it doesn't make any sense to introduce that usage of the word because it just directs our attention away from the issue which is being discussed.
Quoting andrewk
OK, I accept that you didn't blame me, It just appeared like you were being critical of me not wanting to accept this as a Verbal Dispute. And I still don't believe it is a Verbal Dispute. I think you are making up this claim of a different usage, as a distraction. Clearly, what I have been talking about is the need for some sort of judgement concerning the quality of an action, in order for there to be "guilt" associated with that action. And you recognized this with your first post, saying "the person recalls having committed the crime". If a person recalls having committed a "crime", then the person has passed that judgement, that the act committed was not legal. If you now want to change your statement to "the person recalls having acted", you are not staying true.
Perhaps though, I'm now starting to see your point. Are you arguing that a person can have zero respect for the law, but at the same time, hold one's own system of judging good and bad, completely independent of the law? So the person judges oneself as "guilty" of having broken the law, but "not-guilty" of having made a bad action. Therefore despite having broken the law, and judging oneself as guilty, the person has absolutely no remorse, thinking that the action was good, according to some standard higher than the law. If this is the case, then how does that person justify the judgement of "not-guilty" except by turning to a higher law, such as the law of God? Surely the person cannot justify this judgement of "not-guilty", on a whim, after breaking the law. How does the person justify "the law is bad in this situation"? Or does that person just always believe oneself to be higher than the law?
That goes too far for me. Look at my Gandhi example. Did he have no respect for the law? Of course not. He was a lawyer! He just had no respect for the race laws of South Africa.
The higher law that for Gandhi and others overrules the race law is his ethics. That does not require a belief in God. For some people such a belief is involved, while for others it is not. This is vanilla meta-ethics. I assume you are very familiar with all this and do not find it controversial.
It would be interesting to know how Gandhi pleaded in court when tried for burning his race card. I imagine he pleaded guilty, because he did not want to deny he did it - that would have undermined his campaign, shifting the discussion from whether a certain law is immoral to whether Gandhi did a certain act. But I do not have the details of the event. Perhaps one of the learned lawyers on here can help.
Another good example is people charged under the (US Federal) Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, for helping a slave evade recapture (penalty six months' jail and $1000). Again I imagine they would plead guilty if caught, in order to make a public stand against the law, but I don't know. Again, maybe one of our lawyers can help with that.
I don't see how this follows, logically. If a person has no respect for a particular law, how can that person have respect for "the laws in general"? It requires referring to a principle higher than "the laws in general" in order to determine which particular laws that one should not have respect for. Referring to something higher than the laws, in order to determine that particular laws are inapplicable in particular situations, implies disrespect for "the laws in general".
Quoting andrewk
No, I'm not familiar with vanilla meta-ethics. But I do not see how an individual can reasonably place one's own personal ethics as higher than the law without reference to God. As soon as an individual adopts the principle that one's own ethics can overrule the laws, at will, then one cannot reasonably deny that others can overrule the laws at will, as well. So the law becomes useless. But if one cites "God" as the basis for this overruling, then it follows that this individual expects that others who wish to overrule the law will refer to God as well. The reference to "God", indicates that it is not one's own personal ethics which is responsible for the overruling, but God's ethics.
My morality stems from values I derive through experience (values which are shared by others). They matter because that's how we feel about them. Imagine dropping a TV on your foot experimentally substantiates value in avoiding pain (or preserving comfort). The desire to go on living substantiates value in preserving life itself. And finally, the joy that can be found in life substantiates the value of actually living. (the last bit is more existential than moral).
They aren't exactly ripped from an eternal framework, they emerge naturally within our temporal. You can say that Christianity had "don't murder" first, but that doesn't mean Christianity or some other eternal framework is required to have it make sense or be useful. We hold murder to be immoral because if we didn't work to fight against it (along with some other crimes) society would fall apart and our temporal lives would be worsened or worse.
Since a temporary life seems to be what we've got, it's imperative we make the most of them.
Quoting Noble Dust
Something can be not absolute and also not easily over-turned. (you've got to overturn pain and pleasure as things people care about)
Quoting Noble Dust
Life is tentative. We're born bereft of Meaning, we learn, we make meaning, it changes over time, sometimes we lose it, and we die.
You're approaching the question of "what's the meaning of life" as if we can make sense of it from outside of the subjective human perspective. The actual Christian answer to that question is "to worship God" because per the christian doctrine, that's more or less the purpose for which we were created. That's a boring and unfulfilling purpose though. Even if it's eternal I'm not enticed by it.
Unless you've got some God or creator/designer that is external to ourselves, how are you going to find the objective meaning of human life itself? If you're agnostic you should already have given up on this. The only thing that's left is the lower case meaning that we assign to our own lives by virtue of how we choose to live, what goals we set for ourselves, and how we feel about them. Even if there is some creator out there with an objective meaning written down in their pocket, it's not like that meaning should matter to us because we don't have access to it and might not stand to benefit from it.
Quoting Noble Dust
I seek the truth too, but instead of picking what resonates with me (when it comes to truth), I pick what resonates with observed reality. If I reject hell because it doesn't resonate with reality, then I've got to reject heaven too. When it comes to things I value (morally) then I pick what resonates with me. What is generally unobservable (like a hypothetical eternity or after-life) I find myself unable to value from a moral perspective because it's unobservable; unreal.
Quoting Noble Dust
All of my philosophical beliefs relate to my being an atheist in that none of them incorporate the existence of god(s).
How can I explain this... Imagine a philosopher who based most or all of their philosophy on the Boston Redskins. Imagine that most of the philosophy they typically navigated also had to do with the Boston Redskins... From their perspective, a philosopher who does not base any of their philosophy on the Boston Redskins in appearance has philosophy that is based on the non-existence of the Boston Redskins, but it's not necessarily the case at all. They may base their philosophy on things other than the existence of the Boston Redskins.
Belief in God profoundly affects how people do philosophy, so since I don't believe in God, I don't experience that effect. It only appears as effect because belief in God is the presumed norm.
Quoting Noble Dust
Can you describe your glimpse of the infinite?
Quoting Noble Dust
I don't know what that means though (objectivization of spirit). I've re-read all your posts on it and all I can decipher about this is that it has something to do with your belief in "the eternal".
I'm surprised that you have such a binary, black and white view of things. Do you not know of any people whom you mostly respect, but who have done one thing that you regard as stupid or mean? Are all your feelings about people either unconditional respect and obedience or complete dismissal?
I'm fine with this, but I think the difference is that I don't stop there. I can see how this jives with your reliance on empirically observing reality. I rely more on creativity or intuition; that's what leads me to go beyond simple experience. I do really on experience, but I also drape it unto the backdrop of what my intuition tells me about reality. This is connected to the experience of the infinite, which I'll get to later as per your question.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I can agree with this, if I sort of re-frame it within a mode of thinking that I've been entertaining lately. The idea of "belief in life". (yes, you may find the word belief annoying). I recently wrote this note to myself: "Belief in life means passively leaving yourself open to the possibility that life has a meaning or purpose." Along with your comment above, it's definitely a much more existential approach. The reason I call it belief is because I think it's possible to have a belief in life even within feelings of meaninglessness. I may feel no meaning in my life, but I might still believe in life. But the difference is that I won't necessarily stop there; that's not the end point. Belief leaves me open to experience in a way that can change my perspective in the future. That's why it's a passive, open stance, rather than an active, closed stance of putting the lid on the jar of meaning/truth. This is an important principle to me, especially when it comes to avoiding dogma or fundamentalism, whether religious or atheistic or otherwise.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I didn't mean it needs a Christian framework specifically. My concern is that, when religious principles are taken out of their religious or spiritual context, they lose the inner life that substantiated them. Moral claims need a rich inner life in order to flourish. We live in an age of spiritual poverty, and I think the moral failings in the world right now are a clear indicator of that inner poverty. This may or may not apply to you or me specifically, but it applies to the general state of humanity.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What I'm trying to point out, is that if life is in fact tentative, and so meaning is also, then your position needs to be equally tentative. It needs to be open to change and correction, but the way you've been arguing has been with such a firm hand that it almost feels dogmatic; I would expect your arguments to be more open and tentative if you see life and meaning in that way. You seem to be invested in convincing me of your position, for instance. Why do so if it's only tentative?
The difference seems to be that an atheistic seeking of the truth remains less open. The classic spiritual seeker, whether studying religions, committing to asceticism, philosophy, meditation, etc etc., is on a journey, and takes the position of a student. I don't get that sense from atheists who claim to be seeking the truth, rather they seem to feel that they've found it. This is what leads to atheistic dogmatism and fundamentalism. I'm not accusing you of that, but I do feel like I sense a little bit of it in your arguments. You seem very settled for one who claims to be seeking the truth.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'm not sure yet, but I'm open to it being possible, whether in this life or no.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I can give it a shot. I'm a songwriter/composer, and the best stuff I've written has been in uninterrupted 7 or 8 hour sessions, usually totally spontaneous. The feeling of not really being responsible for writing the song is real, regardless of how cliche it may be. The experience is of a real connection with a force outside of oneself; outside of one's own creative ability; it's the experience of being a conduit. The Greek understanding of time is Cronos (linear time) and Kairos (God's time). Kairos cuts into Cronos at opportune times; the infinite cuts into the temporal. I've experienced that on many occasions.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It's an idea borrowed from the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev. I personally am not married to it, but I like it. The idea is that freedom is ultimate, prior to being. From freedom springs spirit, and the physical world is a symbol, an objectivization of the spiritual world.
"Dialectic materialism in the form it has taken in Soviet Russia has been an attempt to introduce correctives into the theory of evolution and to recognize self-movement within. Thus matter was endowed with qualities of spirit, with creative activity, with freedom, and intelligence. In this way violence was done to language. A thoroughgoing transvaluation of naturalistic determinism is required. Laws of nature do not exist, laws that is, which dominate the world and man like tyrants. All that exists is a direction in the action of forces which in a given co-relation act uniformly as regards their results. A change in the direction of the forces may change the uniformity. In the primary basis of these forces there lies a spiritual principle, the noumenal. The material world is only the exteriorization and objectivization of spiritual principles. It is a process of induration, of fettering. It might be said that the laws are only the habits of the acting forces, and frequently bad habits. The triumph of new spiritual forces may change the effect of the measured tread of necessity. It may bring about creative newness." - Berdyaev, Divine and the Human
Depends which atheists you are talking about. The fundamentalists (e.g. Dawkins) are desperate to find a world without religion. For them it occupies the space of Meaning which belongs to God or religion to the people he criticises. It terminates the question: "Where does meaning come from?" and replaces it with an answer of: "In the end of religion in human communities."
For atheists concerned with Meaning, they have good reason for abandoning The Journey: their knowledge of Meaning makes it irrelevant. The Journey is a quest to find out how to make the meaningless world ("temporal," in your words) into the meaningful one ("infinite,"in your words). It's pointless to the atheist who knows Meaning because they know nothing is needed to turn the world Meaningful. They understand states of the world ( "temporal" ) express Meaning ( "infinite" ) all by themselves.
Let's put it in context. How is it that any state of action is worthwhile? Is caring for your community only worthwhile because it'll get you eternal life? Is protecting your child only worthwhile becasue it will mean you will get to live forever? Is writing a symphony only worth it becasue it means endless life?
In every case, the answer is no. In each case, there is an important state, done for itself, which is worthwhile. They don't matter merely because they are a means to get eternal life. None of them are worthless or even less important if we all cease to exist at some point. All have infinite meaning of which the world would be a worse place without. What such an atheist knows is there is no "problem of Meaning to answer." Meaning is necessary, no matter who you are, no matter your culture, religion, philosophy or politics.
VagabondSpectre appears tentative because he both understands that the religious argument is bullshit (i.e. Meaning is necessary, so it doesn't need to be created) but also that the practice of any religion amounts to a Meaningful life. On the one hand, his knowledge of Meaning shows the religious argument is a falsehood, but he respects religion (where it is not ethically egregious) as the practice of a meaningful life.
You're absolutely right that the underlying atheistic position is "dogmatic." From the point of view of religion, it's even worse than the fundamental atheists. Dawkins and co. only insist religions make absurd claims about the world. To understand the world, itself, is meaningful undercuts religion on its own terms. It eliminates the "problem of Meaning" which drives The Journey and supposed need for religious belief.
But what does the end of religion really mean? Not all that much. In knowing the world is Meaningful itself, one is aware lives involved in religion are worthwhile. Despite knowing religious thought to be false about Meaning, there's no need to have everyone understand of believe it. Indeed, trying to talk about it with the religious is often unethical because it can cause them great distress-- it undermines their entire sense of self and worth.
Nice points, Willow.
Now you've changed the subject, talking about people rather than the law. I don't think I've ever met a person whom I don't have respect for. But how do you suppose that this relates to my respect for the law? I still don't see how one can pick and choose which laws one will abide by, without having disrespect for "the law" in general. Are you suggesting that each law is a separate individual law, and not part of a coherent structure called "the law"? That way you could pick and choose which laws to abide by, without worrying that this means you have disrespect for "the law" in general. You only have disrespect for particular laws. But what gives you the right to pick and choose which laws to abide by? If you give yourself permission to choose which laws you will obey, isn't this best described as "disrespect for the law"? You will only choose to obey the laws which suit your purpose.
The circumstances of a spiritual journey for truth differs from person to person. For instance, I don't begin with the assumption that the world is meaningless, as you suggest here, because I don't equate the temporal with meaninglessness, as you do here.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I never suggested that any moral act is only good insofar as it gets you eternal life. That completely misses the point of what I'm trying to express. I need to make an important distinction here between Religion as such, and my own views. What you say is often true of the religious, but I'm not arguing from their perspective, I'm arguing from my own perspective here.
So, the relationship between morality and eternity is not "a moral life leads to immortality". It's the opposite: The eternal is one with Goodness, of which Meaning and morality are then generated. (These terms start to get hazy here). So the moral act is good because of it's prior relation to the eternal, not a future relation.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
As someone neither religious nor atheist, I actually find this form of atheism as more level-headed than the Dawkins crowd.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You have yet to explain just exactly how the world is Meaningful from this atheistic perspective. So, the world is Meaningful on its own terms. How? In what way?
'pick and choose' is a loaded term, implying a flippant attitude to the decision.
There was nothing the least bit flippant about Gandhi's decision to defy an unjust law. He expected to be beaten, vilified, imprisoned and fined.
Stripped of the loaded language, I can accept your formulation. That is, I believe that it is reasonable and consistent to choose, after serious ethical consideration, to disobey a law that one is convinced is unjust, while still believing that, in the absence of gross injustice, laws should be obeyed.
Peter Singer has written about this at length. He argues that one should obey the law except where there are gravely serious reasons not to do so. In a nutshell, his argument is that we all benefit when nearly everybody obeys the law. That benefit can only be outweighed by very strong considerations in the opposite direction, usually in relation to a grossly unjust or otherwise harmful law. Such exceptions occur only rarely, but they do occur.
Singer has lived out this philosophy by breaking laws to trespass to try to prevent environmental destruction, for which he was arrested in the 1980s. But in every other respect he has - to my knowledge - been a model law-abiding citizen and encourages others to do likewise.
If you want to call that 'disrespect for the law' then go ahead. But that looks to me a meaningless bunch of words, that is unable to account for why Singer scrupulously pays his taxes, does not litter, drives within the speed limit, etc.
If you'd like to dip into Singer's arguments why - other things being equal - it is ethically better to obey the law, they can be found in his book 'Practical Ethics' in chapter 11: 'Civil Disobedience, Violence and Terrorism'. I highly recommend it. It's a cracking read.
OK, so this implies that you believe that you yourself are better able to decide what you should and shouldn't do, with respect to ethical decisions, than the law. If you see the application of a particular law as a "gross injustice", you will not obey that law.
Do you agree, that this puts you "higher than the law"? Or, do you think that there is no such thing as "the law"? There are just different particular laws, made by different particular groups of people, with different particular interests, and no such thing as "the law" in general. In the latter case, if the law appears like a "gross injustice" to your particular interest, it ought not be followed. It is not the case that you place yourself "higher than the law", because there is no such thing as "the law". There is only individual laws, and you can judge each one as applicable, or grossly unjust with respect to your interests, without placing yourself as "higher than the law".
Quoting andrewk
Now you introduce another reason not to obey the law. If there are "gravely serious reasons", then the law ought not be obeyed. "Gravely serious reasons" means something completely different from "gross injustice". So we have two described situations in which we should not obey the laws. We could consult multiple other authors, and compile a whole list of situations in which the laws should not be followed. But how do we judge the authority of those authors? If we consult the right (or wrong depending on your judgement) authors, we could find reason to disobey all laws. My opinion is that you are leading me down a slippery slope, claiming that an author has the authority to tell me when it is ethical to disobey the laws.
Quoting andrewk
Why, do you accept Singer's words as to when to disobey the laws? Is Singer more intelligent than the lawmakers? Why not turn to someone like Thoreau instead? He will give you reason not to pay your taxes. Why would you think that paying your taxes, obeying the speed limit, and not littering, but disobeying other laws for "gravely serious reasons" makes a person more ethical than someone like Thoreau who saw large scale decisions made by the state, such as foreign policy, as grossly unjust, and concluded that protest is necessary? Remember, your personal reason, stated above is "gross injustice", not "gravely serious", which might put you closer to Thoreau than to Singer.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover I place the authority of all authors at naught, and I would encourage others to do likewise.
I do not accept Singer's words, and I would encourage others to do likewise.
That may seem strange to you, since I agree with Singer on many things, including the circumstances in which it is reasonable to disobey the law.
But my principle is that I must decide for myself.
The reason I mentioned Singer is because he highlighted a number of considerations that I had not previously considered, and thereby enabled me to reason through to my own conclusion more clearly and with more confidence.
Singer is not your guru. I am not your guru. Nobody is your guru except you. You are your own guru. It is good to listen to what others have to say, as it helps one to think more widely and clearly. It exposes one to ideas, perspectives and channels of reasoning that one may not have previously experienced. But I believe that it is best for one to decide for oneself.
Since I am not your guru, you should not just accept that last sentence. If I were you I would think about it and decide for myself whether to accept it.
BTW your allusion to Thoreau's 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' is timely. I have been meaning to read it, and will bump it up my reading list as a consequence of this discussion. I suspect I will not agree with many of his conclusions as - based on Walden - his temperament seems to be much less communitarian than mine. But who knows? And in any case I expect it to be an enriching and entertaining read.
I have you to thank for the fact that I will probably now get around to reading it, whereas otherwise I would not have.
BTW BTW apropos of an earlier discussion: did you read 'The Death of Ivan Ilych'? I just finished it. It's a short and easy read. I'm still working out what to make of it. I'm glad I read it.
OK, then to maintain consistency with your beliefs I will not refer to "the law", I will refer to "the laws". We could digress into a discussion of the reality of "the state" here, because I think that if you believe that the multitude of "laws" belonging to a governing state, do not exist under one coherent structure of "the law", then you cannot believe that there is a coherent "state". Then again, if each state itself represents "the law", then with a multitude of states, there is a multitude of "the law"s, and no real, coherent "the law" unless there was a world state.
Quoting andrewk
I agree that we should decide for ourselves what to believe, but we do need to get some ideas from others. You write pretty well, maybe you could be influential. In the case of deciding when to obey or disobey the law though, it may be the best policy for the average person, to always try to obey the law as much as possible. When I was younger I was not so committed to this principle, and I found that once I allowed the habit of deciding when it was good not to follow the law to form, there can be very unfavourable consequences. That is because the laws are defended with much force, and whether or not the law which you choose to disobey is a good or bad law, when you do disobey it, you are vulnerable to that force.
Quoting andrewk
OK, so I agree with you, take your advise, and decide for myself what to believe. But here we are discussing ethics, and ethics deals with actions. I like to believe that there is a difference between what one believes, and how one acts. You might think that one's actions are necessarily consistent with one's beliefs, and provide a representation of one's beliefs, but I don't think that this is true. So for instance, if I believe that a particular law is bad, and to be ethical I should not obey it, I will still obey it, believing myself to be behaving unethically, because of the threat of law enforcement. Therefore I believe myself to be acting unethically, but this is justified because I am being forced to act unethically by those who defend the laws. I think it is better to live unethically than to suffer the consequences of that force.
Quoting andrewk
I've read some Thoreau, I remember Walden's Pond quite well. He was a unique, and therefore odd character, probably very difficulty to befriend, but I do have respect for his thought. I think he was quite intelligent. I do not agree with his principles of civil disobedience though. As I've described above, I think it best to obey the laws as much as possible, regardless of how much you disagree with them. This is because disobeying becomes habitual and you will most likely suffer consequences. There are those who might choose to suffer the consequences, like Gandhi, in order to make a statement, but a campaign like that must be well orchestrated in order that it be successful. And in this type of campaign the question becomes whether or not it is necessary to appeal to religion, or God, as Jesus and Muhammad did, in order to have a truly successful campaign. It is difficult to unite people against a ruling force without a principle of unity. To say "X is bad" is one thing, but until you offer Y as the alternative which is good, it's difficult to unite against X.
Quoting andrewk
I started reading it and made it through the first chapter before I got very busy and had to put it down. I never got back to it, but I should because I was enjoying it. I really like the personalities which Tolstoy creates in his characters, there are literally layers of meaning within an individual's personality.
All I'll say is that intuition can be impressively powerful, but it mustn't be blindly trusted.
Quoting Noble Dust
I too am open to the possibility that through learning we may one day come to find something we can label with an upper case M (for Chistianity, this would entail meeting god) but I've given up expectation that such a thing is ever going to happen in this life. So, bereft of hard Meaning i've decided to settle for the soft kind, preferably as much quantity, quality, and variety of it as can be found. Higher learning instead becomes oriented around soft meaning. I do take intrinsic pleasure in learning itself, but the utility of the things I learn often facilitate more reliable paths to soft meaning (which again is valuation of temporary things as opposed to the value contained in the infinite).
Quoting Noble Dust
It sounds like you're saying that religious or spiritual beliefs (and their inner life) are required for moral claims to flourish, and that the spiritual poverty of today is the cause of today's moral failings, but the past was actually no morally superior to the present by any metric. The further back you go the more spiritual things seem to get, but also the more you tend to see widespread "moral failings". Is there a context that I'm missing?
Quoting Noble Dust
Because heaven doesn't resonate with observable truth. As much as I want it to exist, I know allowing myself belief would be an arbitrary or irrational emotional treat.
Quoting Noble Dust
So we need to separate out atheism from my existential/moral views, and also my existential views from my moral views, because they're not predicated on one-another and are distinct aspects of my mind. I'm an atheist because I find no argument for god's existence satisfyingly persuasive. It's a lack of belief which I defend by criticizing the arguments of others. To convince you to assent to my atheism would be to have you agree that X or Y proof of god is irrational. (I attack the proof of others, but I have no central claim of my own which requires proof).
My existential views pertaining to the subjective value (and therefore meaning) of life (being a subjective interpretation of one's desires) is minimalist in comparison to anything seeking objective meaning. You're free to grab a pick and start digging for spiritual gold, but I'm satisfied with less.
The moral values I promote are functionally universal and the moral arguments I use to promote them employ observation and logic rather than creativity or the spirit. I find it very easy to convince others to adopt my moral positions because I only make moral claims which appeal directly to basic shared values via logic and reason to show how moral positions can preserve or promote those basic shared values. I don't even have to use words like "immoral", "right" and "wrong" because I can frame all my arguments directly in terms of benefit. A good moral tenet is like a technology that allows humans to thrive; it's like offering irrigation to a farmer, you just need to show them and they will want it.
So when it comes to my moral positions, I would be invested in convincing you to adopt my positions if we actually had a moral disagreement. My existential views are something which more or less everyone already assents to in the way they behave. Even asceticism, which is meant to be a rejection of earthly value, is itself an embrace of earthly values: emotional/cognitive fulfillment. When it comes to my position as an agnostic atheist, I'm not actually very interested in convincing you to join me in my atheism, but I am quite interested in refuting any proof's of god that you might offer. My atheism is in fact tentative, but my existential beliefs are not, and my moral views are only as tentative as they contain room for improvement.
The firmness of my existential and moral arguments results from their rational robustness. The firmness of my atheism results from the lack of rational robustness in theistic arguments.
Quoting Noble Dust
How long should I search for the truth of god to the expense and detriment of searching for other truths (non-god related truth)? It's not as if I've suddenly decided there are no good proofs of god arbitrarily. I went looking for them, and I've seen many many different attempts to prove the existence of some kind of deity, and they've all wound up proving irrational. It's like "ghosts"; when I was a kid I was open to the idea of ghosts, but now that I'm older and I've seen the absolute hogwash they call "evidence", I'm so firmly skeptical of "ghosts" that you might as well call me the pope of dogmatic skepticism.
In the face of continuous failure (trying to prove god) it eventually becomes prudent to give up and move onto other things. I'm seeking lower tier truth because that's what I've learned can actually be found.
Regarding your description of your glimpse of the infinite, it doesn't exactly seem like creative energy requires some external force in order to exist. Instead of an external force, a subconscious internal force seems like a more plausible candidate. I'm not saying for certain that your creative energy doesn't come from god, but can you actually prove to a reasonable degree or persuade me that your experience did in fact come from god or the infinite and not your own subconscious mind?
Quoting Noble Dust
What if science and technology could offer you potentially infinite life extensions and no upper limit on your ability to increase your freedom? (ignoring that it doesn't).
I'm curious because I'm trying to understand the root of the value you place in the infinite... If infinite freedom and infinite life was your state of existence in this world, would that be a capital M source of Meaning?
If a person commits a crime that person is responsible for the crime, and is therefore guilty of committing the crime. The person is responsible for the crime taking place. A person may think he has not committed the crime, in which case he has amnesia, or is insane (for example). A person may not think he's committed a crime--i.e. that what the person did should not be a crime, or is not crime, really, despite the fact that it is defined as a crime; but the person nonetheless has committed one, as whether a crime is a crime is not dependent on the person's beliefs.
OJ was found not guilty. Many believe that he nonetheless is guilty because they believe he is responsible for the crime having taken place--he committed the crime. This seems quite clear. The determination being made, or not being made, is whether a crime was committed, not whether it is "wrong" to commit the crime.
Why not say the same thing of empirical observation?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's certainly true, there's no moral evolution per se. But I think we're dealing with different kinds of moral failings now. Less barbarous and more cunning, so to speak. The older, more spiritual world seems less dependent on reason, and we can almost smell the blood sacrifices of the holy. A brutal and barbarous world, no doubt, but one swimming in Meaning. Now we live in a world predicated on civility, thanks to sciences offspring (technology) which allows us to live a less barbarous, more reasonable life, but the human condition (the lack), still presents itself, just in a more cunning, subversive way. See "fake news" and our apathy and inability to personally do anything about it. Fake news is almost the grand culmination of postmodernity and the loss of Meaning, and it's hard to say whether it's a comedy or a tragedy. We live in a different milieu of moral failing, but we have the cloak of civility. Blake says "Pride is shame's cloak", and we could say "civility is barbarity's cloak".
So, to be very clear, I'm not suggesting we should revert back to the barbarous times of a spiritual milieu. (impossible to do anyway, unless we find ourselves in a post-apocalyptic wasteland anytime soon, which I don't rule out). I'm just describing what I see as the change from an inner spiritual life, to a poverty of spiritual life, and the changes that occur. This change is even mirrored in the very common experience (at least in the US) of the child growing up in the church "losing her faith" in the 21st century. The microcosm reflects the macrocosm.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'll trust that you're able to do that, but I'm cautious of the idea that a separation of those views can be actual. It's certainly possible to do so in abstraction, for the sake of analyzing each, but surely each aspect of your whole view of life affects the other, whether you're aware of it or not.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I think this analogy breaks down when you include the variable of human consciousness or mental health, though. Depression, suicidal tendencies, addiction, past abuse, these things inhibit the "farmer of life" from accepting "irrigation". So, predicated on that problem, your (attractively) simple approach to a moral framework wouldn't be universally effective given the state of humanity. More variables would need to be factored in, which would add complexity to the moral situation.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why be interested right away in refutation if soft-atheism is merely the lack of belief? Wouldn't soft-atheism entail an openness to new proofs of God that would overturn said atheism? As you say in the next sentence, your atheism is tentative.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'm not sure; you're free to end the search anytime you like. To be clear, I'm not here to try to convince you to pursue God, just as you say you're not here to convince me of atheism. Anyway, on days when I believe in God (tuesdays??) I'm a universalist...
I will say, though, that as far as "proofs for God", I consider it the wrong approach entirely. I actually have no interest in the classical proofs, or whatever else. The possibility of God to me is existential; it's based on existence and experience. How else can we go about an inquiry into an infinite being that exists outside of and generated the world we know? Not through empiricism, clearly. Empiricism deals with that world outside of which the eternal being would exist. This is why I find your soft-atheism unsatisfying. It's not about empirical proof. On the other hand, I'm way more sympathetic to the idea of God being unknowable. So, the God concept is only irrational insofar as it transcends rationality. The reason you find it irrational and end your inquiry there is that your inquiry seems to begin and end with rationality.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, because I can't put you in my shoes and let you experience what I experience. This is the limit of existentialism, in a way. And I'm fine with that. I don't expect my experience to be compelling to someone who relies on rationality to determine their view of reality. I'm open to the possibility that subconscious processes are not self-contained within the mind. And as to the mechanical workings of my brain, it's less important to me than the whole canvas of my life's experiences, and how my experience of this intense form of creativity relates to all the rest of the canvas. It's a bold color among other pastels and shades. I often wonder who the artist is.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If it was accompanied by a moral evolution, then I would be interested.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't blame you for trying to figure this out, because I haven't done so myself. The curse of an intuitive approach to life and philosophy. I don't have a firm structure of my philosophy in place as you do, and I'm ok with this for now. But things like infinite freedom, infinite life and Meaning all need to be predicated on a supreme moral reality, a reality that I don't think exists yet. Optimistically, I'm searching for a way for morality to evolve. Pessimistically, I'm not sure if it can. But my experience of the infinite (almost related too to Plato's "memory" thing), is a driving factor in my view of how morality could evolve. That's more of the thrust here for me, not the infinite itself. The use of the word infinite in this discussion actually came about arbitrarily in the midst of it. It's just an aspect of my view, not the goal. My discussion of the infinite was just in response to your questions about it, as far as I remember. Again, I'm not over here in my corner trying to work out how to fool God into letting me live eternally and avoid hell. If I have any fixation on the infinite, it's because of my search for a moral evolution that I find satisfying. I'm a bit of a perfectionist.
There are no terms. Meaning is necessary, is infinite. To specify a particular "how" (e.g. go on a spiritual journey, be an atheist, accept Jesus, etc.) is incohrent. Doing so would require treating the infinite (Meaning) as if it were temporal (some state of the world, way of acting or thinking).
Meaning is beyond any instance of the temporal. It's true regardless of particular actions or states. No matter who someone is or what they are doing, their life has Meaning. The ignomy (Meaninglessness) religion assigns to us is a myth. We cannot be severed from the infinite and have never existed without it.
My use of "eternal life" isn't just literal. I'm also using it in a metaphorical sense, where it refers to gaining Meaning. Is my life only worthwhile because I get to act in a way that turns it meaningful?
Well, no. An act to help my community is, for example, has the same worth no matter my religious beliefs. I don't need to, for example, accept Jesus or go on a spiritual journey for the act or my life to have Meaning. Either way, it has Meaning.
When I say you assume meaninglessness, I'm referring to how you don't recognise Meaning itself.
Rather than understanding Meaning to be infinite, without beginning not end, you treat it like achieved with a particular "how" or action, as if Meaning were a finite state created by behaving in the correct manner.
And philosophy falls apart, along with your following post.
How does introducing a counterfactual condition explain how the person is "in fact guilty"? The point of my example is that the person's actions have not been judged as criminal, so whether or not the person committed a crime is indeterminate. We know the person was active, but there is no description of the actions. How can you say that the person is "in fact guilty"? To introduce a counterfactual to explain your claim of what is "in fact" the case, is contradictory.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Are you saying that despite the fact that the court found OJ not guilty, the fact that many people believe he is guilty makes him "in fact guilty"? If I believe that someone is guilty does that make the person "in fact guilty"? Or does it require that many people believe that the person is guilty to make the person guilty in fact?
We seem to have a problem communicating, or I do. The definition of "guilty" includes "responsible for" (in dictionaries I've seen, in any case). The definition of "responsible" includes "being the cause (or primary cause) of" something--again, according to dictionaries I've seen.
It seems to me that it follows that someone is guilty of a crime if he/she caused it, i.e. committed the crime, and so is responsible for it, having caused it. And, that a person is not guilty of a crime if he/she did not commit the crime, and so is not responsible for causing it.
That's not the case in the law, however.
A finding of "not guilty" by a jury is simply a finding that the defendant has not been shown to have committed the crime at issue beyond a reasonable doubt. A typical jury instruction given to a jury in a criminal case includes language like this (Pennsylvania):
"It is not the defendant’s burden to prove that [he] [she] is not guilty. Instead, it is the Commonwealth that always has the burden of proving each and every element of the crime charged and that the defendant is guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The person accused of a crime is not required to present evidence or prove anything in his or her own defense [except with respect to the defense of [type of defense], which I will discuss later]. If the Commonwealth’s evidence fails to meet its burden, then your verdict must be not guilty. On the other hand, if the Commonwealth’s evidence does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then your verdict should be guilty."
So, outside the law, given the definitions of the pertinent words, it makes complete sense to say that someone is guilty of a crime if that someone caused it, committed it (is responsible for it), and not guilty of a crime if that someone did not cause it, did not commit it (is not responsible for it).
You seem to have some difficulty with the claim that a person may commit a crime and yet be found "not guilty" by a jury. I'm not sure why, though, since the fact that a jury found a defendant not guilty doesn't require a finding that person did not commit a crime.
There's something peculiar about the statement "Don't trust what you observe blindly", but yes, we would say that. Empiricism is about testing predictive models (of observed phenomena) to find out how accurate and reliable they are, but god/the infinite is not a testable and therefore falsifiable theory, leaving us no way of knowing how reliable said intuition really is.
Quoting Noble Dust
What Meaningful spiritual riches are there to be found in the past which cannot be found today? People seemed more deeply committed to their religion and derived more of their meaning directly from it in the past, but nothing stops people so inclined from wholly embracing sprituality. I don't see why we would benefit were we all more spiritual.
Post-modernism, and "fake news", aren't really connected with the rise of atheism, but I'm sure they do share some common contributing factors. The rise of sophisticated empirical science (which replaces a lot of the whys of the world religion used to explain) contributes to atheism, and maybe post-modernism is in part a scramble to find meaning since the disheveling of traditional religious societal and psychological foundations, but fake news is another thing entirely. That's mostly the result of unmoderated propaganda flooding the internet and it's growing communication channels
Quoting Noble Dust
While you view "losing one's faith" as the descent into spiritual poverty, I view it as the ascent into intellectual development and robustness. In my view children don't start out with faith, it's arbitrarily forced upon them by their family and community before they're capable of critical thought. Babies are soft-soft-atheists!
Quoting Noble Dust
What you're trying to tell me is that my moral and existential views are a symptom of my lack of spirituality. My moral and existential views aren't spiritual, but they're not predicated on "non-spirituality". Spritual moral and existential views are founded on spiritual beliefs; non-spiritual moral and existential views are founded on something else. I don't found my moral or existential views on the absence of god, they just don't include god in their workings. They work with or without god in fact (generally).
Quoting Noble Dust
I'm very sympathetic to the idea of god being unknowable, including it's existence. I find all of metaphysics unsatisfying because it inherently moves past the observable and testable world and heads into a purely invisible, unknowable, and therefore hypothetical world to which we have no access. It's all true, it's all false; it doesn't matter: who knows? Nobody can know. Some people might object to my use of the term metaphysics in this sense, but theological metaphysics does tend to have the quality of being unfalsifiable; blind.
Quoting Noble Dust
I too am looking to evolve (my own) morality, but I'm very wary of anything presenting itself as ultimate because it then becomes more justifiable to sacrifice the temporal (one's life and everything else in it) to preserve it. Ultimate importance has no equal, so in your future pursuits when you see someone claiming to have found it, feel obligated to really put it to the test should you consider adopting it. If it really is an ultimate force, it can take it.
Pascal makes an impassioned case for gambling your one chit on the ultimate, and I'm here to be the conservative nag who urges people to really consider the risk. Gambling is after all frowned upon in most religions ;)
That's a strawman.
My point wasn't there are no terms, for there are plenty of those: Meaning, infinite, worth, etc., but that you were demanding finite terms to account for the infinite.
There isn't a "how" by which one becomes Meaningful. It's not one's actions, appearance, status, wealth, politics, values, religion of philosophy which makes their life Meaningful. The worth of a sinner is not defined by any of those terms.
Even the abusive, genocidal, depressed, unrepenting slimeball's life has Meaning. They are person, whose actions are important, who are worth forgiving, with a life that matters, no matter how much they hate their life (and everyone else) and think it's all worthless. Meaning is not something gained through action in the world. Everyone, always and necessarily, has it.
Earlier I eviscerated Grace for inequality, this is why. Sure Grace claims to be equal, and it is insofar as it destroys the idea Meaning is dependent wealth, status or displays of piety, but it is only within the context of the practice of accepting Jesus.
In the end, Grace still makes Meaning dependent on what you do, on display of action for others. It's another misunderstanding of Meaning as a possession gained by particularly action world-- it just replaces wealth, status and piety with "being Christian."
Any approach which thinks Meaning is dependent on "how" is making a similar mistake.
No, what I am arguing is that in order for it to be true that a particular individual is a criminal, that person's actions must have been judged as being criminal, according to some set of laws. If that judgement is not made by human beings, who is it made by?
Here's an analogy. People will say that a rock, never observed by a human being, exists as a rock. Or some might say some thing never before observed by human beings, like a planet on the other side of the universe, exists as a planet on the other side of the universe. But unless this existence is judged to be "a rock", or to be "a planet", how is it correct to assume that such a thing exists as "a rock", or as "a planet"?
In this case, you seem to want to say that the person is "a criminal" ("in fact guilty"), even though the person has never been judged to have fulfilled the conditions of "having committed a crime". How is that possible? Sure, you can say that if the person committed a crime, then the person is a criminal, just like you can say that if there is something on the other side of the universe which fulfills the conditions of being a planet, then there is a planet there, but how does that make any particular person a criminal, or any particular thing a planet? In order for a person to "be in fact, a criminal", one must have been judged as such.
Consider, we would say that prior to the existence of human beings, the planets in the solar system existed. But they did not exist as "planets", because they has not been judged to be planets. How could they exist as "planets" if there was no one to judge them as being "planets"? We extrapolate, now, from our understanding, to say that the planets were there then, as "planets", before our existence, and so this statement that the planets were there before us, is justified. But we are not justified in the statement that the planets were "planets" without having been named as such. So we are not justified in the claim that a person is "a criminal" without having been named as such.
Any name "criminal" in this case, has meaning associated with it. And a mind associates the name with the object. But we cannot correctly claim that the object, the person in this case, has the name "criminal" associated with it, unless a mind makes that judgement.
We know what a crime is by consulting the law, and determining whether the terms of the law have been violated, when prompted by circumstances to do so. We can refer to an "unsolved" crime as we can determine whether a law has been violated but may be unable to determine how it was committed or by whom. When we don't know a crime has been committed, though, then we don't think of or speak of a crime.
May laws have been violated, crimes committed, without our knowledge? Yes, as trees may have fallen without our knowledge. But I don't think this is a useful inquiry.
You seem to be missing the point. The question is whether the thing is "a tree" without being named as a tree. Since "tree" is only the name that we call it, it could not be. So how could a person be "a criminal" without being named as a criminal, when "criminal" is just a name that we assign to some people. You would not be "Ciceronianus" if you had not been named that, so why would a person be "a criminal" without having been named that?
It's a relevant inquiry, because you clearly desire to say that a criminal is a criminal without being named that, and that a tree is a tree without being named that. But this requires that someone, such as God attaches the name to the object.
I think merely that one can have committed a crime without having been found to have done so. This assumes, of course, that there are laws, but we don't require God in order to establish that laws exist. A crime is by definition a violation of a law which is subject to punishment by the state. If there are no laws, there can be no crime.
But if there are laws, we know of them, and so know what a crime is as a result. Murder is a crime (whether God thinks so or not). We know that murder is a crime regardless of whether we know that a murder has been committed. We know that a person who has murdered someone has committed a crime regardless of whether we know the person has murdered someone. We may not know that a murder has been committed, but know that if one is committed a crime has been committed.
So here's the point Ciceronianus. There are laws, that's a fact. There are human actions, and that's a fact as well. These are two very distinct things, laws and human actions. In order that a person's actions may be criminal, a comparison between the actions and the laws must be made, with a judgement following that comparison. Do you agree with me here? If you do agree, then in cases where human beings do not pass that judgement, whom other than God could?
I think you're confusing judging and knowing. Accepting what I think is the common conception of God, God doesn't judge whether or not someone violated one of our laws. Knowing everything, though, he would know what our laws are and know if something took place, which would include what we define as a crime, though we do not. If that's your point, I agree.
I think that "knowing" implies correct judgement, because "truth" requires that a statement be interpreted, and judged as corresponding with reality. Even knowing what occurred requires a interpretation of reality. To know something is to make a correct interpretation, and interpretation requires judgement. So if God is believed to be the supreme knower, then God is believed to be the supreme judge. If God knows everything then all of God's judgements are correct, as knowing something is to make the correct judgement. This is how God is related to truth. If human judgements can be faulty, yet we assume that there is a truth (about whether or not a person is guilty for example) to the matter, then it must be God's judgement which comprises that truth, which is supposed to exist independent of human judgement.
So fascinating. This need for testability, for empiricism, isn't even something that I actually have any critique of; I just can't fathom it for myself. I love the unknown. I love being lost. When I visit a new city, I consciously wander around until I'm literally lost. So I just can't relate. But so interesting that there's people like yourself who are so committed to this thing.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
In a way, I think the true spiritual riches of the past are either dormant, or coming to birth in the world we live in today. So I'm not worried, and I'm not concerned with explaining it in more detail for you, because I don't think you're particularly interested. Of course, if you are, I'll give it a shot once I'm more properly rested.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
To the contrary, one can crudely make a vague map as such: Protestantism -> The Enlightenment -> The Death of God (a seed of modern atheism)-> Modernism -> The World Wars -> Post-Modernism -> Our Current Epoch (including fake news, etc) (what exactly do we call ourselves now???). Ah, this is a bit of a gross generalization. I'm not actually that concerned with how atheism fits in here, but, to your statement: after the World Wars, it seems like the various nuances and aspects of modern atheism really started to take shape. The existential crises of the wars really helped the Western World to frame their atheistic feelings. There was a context of horror that helped the world at large set it's agnostic and it's atheistic bar. Elliot's The Wasteland is a perfect barometer of that moment. All of these various worldviews, along with competing worldviews like right-wing conservatism and it's requisite faux-Christianity, bring us to where we are now, with our "fake news". So there is certainly a connection, or a parallelism, with the rise of atheism, as I can see it, historically. I'm not accusing atheists of being responsible for "fake news"; I hope that's clear. What I'm saying is that these various factors: fake news, atheism, post-modernism, are related. They all can't properly exist without one another, historically and politically.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Maybe I spoke wrongly or didn't express my view adequately; to the contrary, I view "losing one's faith" as the potential for acquiring "true faith". If I can make one more criticism, it's that I'm always struck by the black and white, "either/or" mentality of so many ex-members-of-Christendom like yourself. I'd rather not presume to know why you respond the way you do, and why I respond the way I do (to being raised within Christendom). But I find so much wisdom in a passive approach that is so careful to lay no inherent blame on teachings, but only on teachers; this allows one to assess the teachings with less of a grudge.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
On what, then? At this point I would be inclined to say "on nothing" (I mean that formally, not pejoratively).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This to me speaks presciently to the untranslatability of your empiricism to my intuition. My view on that is best illustrated by my first response in this post. Do you at least see how me saying this is not at all an avoidance of your argument? We're both literally speaking different languages here, languages we seem to find satisfying enough to stake our claims on.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I can honestly say that I very much appreciate this advice; not only because it's something that I've used as a metric for myself in the past, but because it's also a finicky standard that my desire for something ultimate often falls prey to because of it's inherent motive. Indeed, "if it really is an ultimate force, it can take it." As you say. Did you mean to hit on the very core of my philosophy here???
Sure they are related in some ways, but each of these thing you have named represent vast and diverse swaths time and thought; they aren't very interdependent.
The protestant reformation was an internal religious schism that eventually culminated in 'The Thirty Years War' whose conclusion marked the end of war between European states driven by theological differences. It was during this time that the atlantic system (of colonial slavery) began to ensure a steady flow of goods to Europe while renaissance thought and art began to take shape (thanks to wealth). After the thirty years war the French in particular started trading enlightenment ideas (largely thanks to their books, newspapers, salons, and coffé houses which offered them the media to do it and the atlantic system which provided them the affluence and free time required), which eventually lead to the French revolution (Louis was too much of a fancy pants in the face of the french population who lived day to day). Perhaps here we're at the most relevant development in favor of atheism, which was the notion that authority to govern should come from the people being governed, not from a divine representative of god called a monarch. This is not atheism, but having it makes cultivating atheism much easier.
Nietzsche kicked off the modern era by announcing god is dead to indicate that Christian moral foundations needed replacement, and after a brief nihilistic affair, secularism was the result. After the first world war secular humanism emerged as a product of rational and ethical inquiry. It's noteworthy that secular humanism plays a role in enabling atheism, but it should be understood that secular humanism is a kind of moral foundation which functions without theological claims; atheists largely adopt secular humanism because it's one of the main moral foundations available to them. The second world war and the ensuing half a century did to modernism what early modernism did to religious belief: it marginalized it; post-modernism is born. "Post-modernism" is a term I don't like using because of how vague it is (does that make me a post modernist? Damn it.) but in regards to what we're discussing, it wasn't beneficial to atheism at all.
Atheism had been around and didn't need post-modernism mucking up and doubting it's structure; Atheism came under fire for being too certain. "Theological non-cognitivism" is born, which essentially states that all religious language is meaningless because it refers to experimentally non-existent attributes of non-existent and ill defined things. To even say "god" is to pretend that anything of meaning is being said at all, and so they reject all theological claims and positions (even the atheist lack of position) and refuse to even talk about it... (Stinkin post-modernists am I right?)
I'm not sure what you mean by "fake news", but if you're talking about the modern phenomenon, then you're not talking about run of the mill manipulation through propaganda. Manipulative propaganda really took off during and after the second world war when governments realized just how effective it was for keeping their citizens well ordered. Our media outlets have been intentionally and unintentionally lying to us for over half a century. Fudging numbers, ignoring truths, focusing on and magnifying specific half-truths, and appealing directly to the deepest emotions they're able to appeal to. The new fake news is a phenomenon where extremely emotionally appealing and extremely fabricated "news" is able to make an impact in our media channels thanks to social media technology offering instantaneous means of transmission without also inherently providing fact-checking and vetting functionality.
Fake news is basically sophisticated face-book trolling for cash or political influence. The uncertainty it creates might resemble post-modernism but in order to find a common factor/progenitor we need to go all the way back to the creation of mass media (the printing press), which simultaneously created our ability to share/refine ideas and our ability to manipulate those ideas through lies and lies of omission.
Atheism isn't tied in any meaningful way to post-modernism or to "fake news" though, whether we're talking about new fake news or regular old propaganda.
Quoting Noble Dust
Some grudges I enact because it's morally praiseworthy to do so. Take any religious lampoon I've ever hurled, and in it you will find a morally repugnant target of my abuse. Mostly I paint religion in grey scale or full color, but there are parts of it that merit the black (and some parts the white as well). Pacifism is only useful so long as it's reciprocal, and condemning people to hell because they don't share beliefs is far from pacifism in the realm of ideas.
Quoting Noble Dust
I think I can see why you have this inclination, but honestly ask yourself this question: "if a view is not founded in spiritual beliefs does that mean it must be founded on nothing?"
Of course not, but this is Nietzsche's whole point in declaring god dead. When someone with Christian or spiritual foundations for their moral and existential views suddenly becomes bereft of that spirituality, they therefore lose their existential and moral beliefs too and are left with nothing.
Religious belief and spirituality are first constructed from nothing in a human mind, and generally it's all that mind will ever know in terms of existential belief. Non spiritual beliefs are similarly constructed from nothing as a starting point, but they do base themselves in real things. "I think therefore I am" and "pain and pleasure are real (and have inherent value)", are some basic facts upon which non-spiritual moral and existential views can be founded.
Quoting Noble Dust
I can understand where you're coming from, but don't hold it against me for defending my laboriously constructed (from nothing) existential and moral views (and my criticisms of some other moral views).
Getting lost in a forest of ideas is indeed enjoyable and perhaps necessary for intellectual development, but personally after spending so much time inside of it, I've become more interested in bushwhacking my own trails and setting fires where I think the forest could use some regeneration. For me the most enjoyable part of going to a new place isn't the being lost part, it's the process of discovering the whole.
Quoting Noble Dust
I didn't realize it would resonate so strongly with you, but I can very much relate to it myself. The perfection of an extraordinarily robust idea or belief fascinates me like flame fascinates a moth. I have spent a lot of time looking to find some, and so far I've been able to collect a handful of useful ones (i.e, the validity of pain/pleasure, the strength of empiricism, the reliability of reason). Compared to the ivory towers of divine existential purpose and moral authority, my moral and existential constructs appear as mud-huts which require constant maintenance. That's O.K though, because they do they job well and in reality I think require less upkeep than the great towers I grew up in due to their minimalism. From a tower the view is all clouds and mountain-tops, but down at the eroding shore you see everything up close in all it's confusing complexity. If you do inherently enjoy feeling lost, I'd bet that the unending challenges offered by scientific exploration would prove a source of much longer lasting value than the various top floors of the many metaphysical and ideological towers whose decorative spandrels give intrigue and purchase to those willing to climb them.
Scrutinize the living shit out of any tower claiming to have reached heaven. That's been my strategy for awhile now and so far they've all turned out to be babble.
I dunno, I would venture to say that everything is interdependent of everything else within the history of ideas. Unless you're of the persuasion that real, divine inspiration can occur, where something totally new cuts through the clouds...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I tentatively agree with this concept and don't consider it to be particularity atheistic. But all of that said with some caveats as well.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I am not a Nietzsche expert (The Gay Science has been traveling around with me in my backpack for some time now, waiting to be read), but it seems to me, from reading a lot about Nietzsche, that it's often forgotten that he actually said "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?" It doesn't seem like it was a triumphant atheistic statement of liberation.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Perhaps, but post-modernism also was not beneficial to religion (Christianity, generally, in the west), either. I grew up with the notion that subjectivity and objectivity can't be reconciled to one another, and that objectivity always trumps subjectivity, thanks to a 40-years-late Evangelical obsession with fighting ever so valiantly against the notion of "subjective truth".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But that's just why post-modernism was beneficial to atheism. Atheism, like any worldview, requires a rigorous (or robust, as you say) critique of itself, if it's to continue to be a viable view for people. Why do you think Christian theology has survived for the past 2,000 years? Veracity. Indeed, atheism and Christianity both equally needed the challenge of post-modernism. Post-modernism, for all it's pastiche, panache and bullshit, is hugely a positive force in the evolution of human consciousness. It's an apophatic evolution; a negative evolution. The next step is to rid ourselves of it's shell with grateful hearts.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You basically described what I mean by it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But Stalinist Russia, and to some extent, Hitler's Germany were atheistic political endeavors, the disasters of which informed the disillusionment of the post-modern movement. Hell, even the soft-religiosity of the American nuclear family contributed to this disillusionment, and probably just as profoundly. I'm not specifically accusing atheism of spawning post-modernism, I'm trying to suggest that all sorts of things, including atheism and religiosity (the nuclear family, for instance), enabled post-modernism. I'm no post-modernist myself, but I often think it gets a bad rap for how unintelligible it is. But it's actually a movement that makes utter perfect logical sense, given the direction the world has moved in within the past 100 years. Unintelligibility was the next logical step of the competing strands of thought that met after the 2nd world war ended, and ended with such an existential swan song (or so it seemed). And the unintelligibility of "fake news" is the perfect logical next step. It aligns perfectly with the unintelligibility of post-modernism. Fake news doesn't miss a beat; rather, it was the next moment for us; it was obvious.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't see a grudge as being morally praiseworthy in any context. A grudge suggests harm done to one party by another, thus eliciting the grudge. The proper, moral way to deal with harm is not to perpetuate the harmful act itself through lambasting and lampooning (a sort of retaliation that places the harm back on the perpetrator; thus, a form of the perpetuation of the bondage to "The Other"; a form of oppression in it's own right). I'm not wise enough to say exactly how grudges should be dealt with, but I can at least see far enough ahead (and reference my own experience) to intuit how they shouldn't be dealt with. Of course, I hold my own personal grudges, I just don't hold one against the actual Christian teachings that I grew up with.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
At this point in my life, the answer is "yes".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This sounds more like a projection of your own experience unto the idea. I personally have had the opposite experience; I've found deeper and more meaningful spiritual concepts through the abandonment of the strict religious environment I grew up in.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This reads to me as incredibly reductionist.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But what value do those real things have? How can value be predicated within the realm of the value itself? The value of currency, for instance, is (or was) predicated on the value of gold or silver, or whatever, not on the value of the paper that the money itself is made of. And now, we live in a world where paper money has no referent, which I think is analogous to the idea of an atheistic worldview with no spiritual referent. So again, it comes down to either spirituality or nihilism, with no room for anything in between. A meaningful atheism based on robust concepts of pleasure and pain is in this context analogous to the currency we currently use: paper printed by the government that has no actual value in and of itself; it's value is descended from former value, and not predicated on actual value.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
True, I'm sure I'll get there.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why not travel between the two altitudes?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So far in my life, my enjoyment of getting lost has been more aesthetic than scientific. I'm not concerned with being lost for the sake of finding scientific proofs that have veracity; I'm more concerned with the state of lostness. I'm a poet more than a philosopher, and I mean that honestly, not pretentiously.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, and the towers to heaven that I scrutinize the living shit out of include the towers of atheists like yourself.
The question is really what meaningful interdependence do these ideas have (in my mind or in history)? We could probably find a common cognitive predecessor between ancient Greek stoicism and modern hipsterdom, but I don't expect the connection to necessarily mean much.
Quoting Noble Dust
It's not particularly atheistic, but if you want to find a shared contributor between atheism, secularism, and humanism, that would be it.
The direct cause of (my) atheism isn't an idea upon which it is founded, but rather a failure of the ideas and arguments upon which theism is founded.
Quoting Noble Dust
Why should the failure of theism causing moral quakes be considered a triumph for atheism? Remember, atheism isn't a set of beliefs, nor is it a "team". If theists share something in common because they believe in X, atheists don't necessarily share anything in common at all beyond lacking belief in X. Secular progressive morals and ideas were the eventual triumph, the death of god was it's beginning.
Quoting Noble Dust
Remember to separate secular humanism out from atheism here, as the former is the world view while the latter is in most cases a lack of world view. Perhaps post-modernist doubt can benefit secular humanist thought structure by forcing it to become more robust, but doubt applied to atheism has nowhere to go but to recede from the very language it is framed in (theological non-cognitivism). A theist might expect that doubt applied to lack of belief should lead to positive belief, but such a double negative of doubt is something else entirely...
Quoting Noble Dust
You're drawing comparisons that use very broad conceptualizations. Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany hardly represent atheism to any extent. Hitler's Germany was Christian (not that they were driven by it), and Stalin's Russia was driven by bloody internal oppression in the name of communist ideals (in the name of, but not based on the ideals of). It's fair to link a decline in religiosity to atheism, but atheism founded on an empirical rejection of theist evidence (a scientific attitude) is precisely what post-modernists inherently reject. Cultural relativism appears as the moral result of post-modernism, which is quite far from secular humanism.
Fake news creates an air of unintelligibility but it's different than the post-modern variety: one is outright deception creating doubt in specific facts while the other is based on a rejection of reason. It's a product of social media and the internet, not post-modernism.
Quoting Noble Dust
Well by grudge what I mean is that if I hold a particular person to hold an immoral belief or position (especially when they think it's moral), then I attack their position. The grudge is shorthand for moral condemnation on my part. Ridicule, which is almost always a far lesser harm than the harm of the position I'm attacking, is only the tassel on the spear. When I hear someone say "we should carpet bomb the middle east" I actually think it's worthwhile to yank down their emotional, intellectual, and moral pants, especially where others can see. It's a learning experience for the observers, and a rehabilitative one for the sorry bastards who crumble at the sight of their own reflection.
Quoting Noble Dust
It was Nietzsche's projection first, but losing religion isn't the same as having god die. Until you lose your willingness to entertain (tentatively believe in) a spiritual notion of god, and have it be the basis for your existential/moral views, the old coot is still kickin. It sounds as if you have an expanded conception of god, not a dead one.
Quoting Noble Dust
Pain and pleasure have intrinsic value: eat a chocolate bar or drop a T.V on your foot if you require demonstration of this. Emotional pain and pleasure have values as well. You're saying that pain and pleasure are fiat currency, but they're actually the base units of physical, psychological, and emotional well-being.
Even with American fiat, it's value is based on people's willingness to trade it for labor and commodities, and the value of those labor and commodities is determined by the amount of pain and pleasure (to put it roughly) they represent/enable. Everything humans do is about satiating our internal drives toward whichever specific goal comes into focus, and we choose goals based on what we think can offer physical, intellectual, and emotional pleasure (or avoid pain).
Where and when do you cash in your spiritual promissory notes for real value? Are your spiritual beliefs not of intrinsic value (with intellectual and emotional components)?
Quoting Noble Dust
Once you've been to the top of so many towers, you've already seen a majority of the peaks; and clouds are just clouds: pretty and without function.
Quoting Noble Dust
Enter my mud hut: It boasts livability!
It doesn't wash away easily even though it's made of mud, but It's really small. I only have room for some basic principles like "observations contain data pertaining to the real world" and "I want to avoid excessive discomfort as a goal" and "cooperation is almost always universally profitable toward avoiding discomfort". I've got no room for any intellectual shenanigans of any kind in here, so I welcome your inspection!
Quoting Noble Dust
I can't fully imagine why you value being lost unless it stems from a deep desire to find your own way, and if so you might eventually find you need something sharp to cut through the underbrush. Empiricism is one such sharp implement.
Well, maybe i shouldn't say "everything is interdependent of everything else"; that suggested historical connections that exist outside of time. Rather, something more like "History is real: ideas form a linear thread that describes the history of ideas." It's actually a very simple idea.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This essentially amounts to positive and negative belief, which are poles I consider equal, so I don't see any veracity in your argument here. That's really what I've been trying to argue against all along against your views, in this context. Actually, I'm not even sure anymore why this even matters. Basically, you're insisting on the absolute apophatic nature of atheism as it's given, and I'm saying "yeah, but so what? An apophatic belief assumes a cataphatic belief." So, tied into this position is an assumption that apophatic belief is not an evolution of cataphatic belief, just a side of a larger form of belief. So that would mean atheism and theism are sides of a coin, not linear phases (cataphatic to apophatic). Given all that, I do place some emphasis on apophatic belief in general, which may cast an ironic light on our discussion in general.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Is this really the case in general, or just the case for someone like yourself who takes such pains to make these distinctions? And if the latter, how much do the distinctions matter within an atheist (sorry, a secular humanist..?) worldview?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, no. Doubt applied to atheism could lead to theism. Or pantheism, for that matter. Or a more profound atheism. Surely this is obvious. Doubt just means questioning what you know to be true, in a philosophical context. Lack of doubt leads to fundamentalism, always. You're a smart cookie; don't fall prey to this tendency.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But they represent arguably the first instance of atheistic philosophy taking on the world stage in an epochal context. This isn't to say that atheistic philosophy can't try again and become more robust.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What's the difference?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is a fair point.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
To my own point, I honestly can't tell which part of this sentence signifies fake news, and which part signifies post-modernism.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Ridicule should be reserved for intimate human relationships. If, for instance, you find yourself ridiculing a philosophy forum member, I'd advise you to consider what you're doing before you act. And, as much as I dislike Ted Cruz as much as you do, I would even say you should think twice before ridiculing a politician who is not a personal acquaintance of yours. Ridicule within the context of an online forum or the media's portrayal of a political figure that is fed to you is ultimately just projection and caricature, respectively. There are already too many crusaders who feel themselves to be uniquely enlightened who are clogging the airwaves with their ridicule of the Ted Cruz's and the Obama's of the world. We could do with less ridicule and more positive language; more positive philosophy; more positive spirituality; more positive religion, more positive atheism.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I suppose I'll take that as a compliment. I certainly hope my view of God is a self-generated expansion of what exists.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But the intrinsic value here is essentially survival, or physical well-being, neither of which I count to be foundational stases of Meaning; at best only descriptions of what meaning is. The pain of the TV on the foot and the pleasure of chocolate are descriptions of physical states, and not signifiers of Meaning. There's no referent as to why a TV on the foot or a chocolate bar are good or bad, other than the subjective five senses; and on top of that, the TV on the foot could be a masochistic pleasure, and chocolate could be repulsive (as it is to me; I detest sweets on a purely physiological level. A high level of sugars makes me literally gag). On top of this, I bring back my argument about suicide. There is a strong argument to be made (purely on the prevalence of suicide alone, without even looking up stats), that there is a state of the human mind in which death is more reasonable than life. Let me repeat: A state in which death is more reasonable than life. Clinical depression, for instance, is related to this; i.e. a state in which not only negative emotions, but irrational negative feelings and views about the world dominate the cognitive function of a human person, without reference to the reality of that person's subjective position within society; the depressive state essentially creates an alternate reality in which the person lives. This is, in a sick way, one of the grand tropes of the human person: the ability to end one's own life voluntarily. It surely requires a certain level and depth of cognition to reach the phase where this is possible. These are all states in which your simple philosophy of "pleasures vs. pain" holds no ground; this is your proverbial Wittgensteinian ice where your simple proposition slips and falls; cannot remain upright.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nowhere physically; and at no particular point in time. And there's no promise of any payment. Spiritual value is primary. So none of this analogy works in any way.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But maybe you missed the moment when the clouds part and the sun shines through? Or maybe the stars? (Just drop it, I can do this all day, and it doesn't actually prove any point for either of us. I'll just keep doing it for the sheer fun).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Ah! I too live in a mud hut, and I too am living!
I'm not sure how to interface with your analogy, because I don't feel I'm living in either a mud-hut, or an ivory tower. I think I grew up in the tower, spent some time in the mud-hut, and am now a gipsy, roaming abroad. What my final home will be is not of much concern to me right now. Perhaps I have none.
Maybe you should call your mud hut an igloo? A mud hut will definitely wash away easily, despite your admonitions that it won't. An igloo can withstand the cold of a God-less world! It's just your style!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You may have only room for those three guests, but they could just as easily decide to leave, and I could easily recommend new guests for you! Guests who would give a different turn to your mud-hut social life. (See? I really can do this all day. I'll take it to the point of ad absurdum purely for my own entertainment).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is indeed the reason for my value of lostness. Empiricism is indeed a sharp implement, but I'm less concerned with using it to cut through the underbrush; I'm more concerned with how these various instruments might help me make a fire; maybe even a village.
There's a difference between belief (in existence or non-existence) and lack of belief.
You keep referring to the atheist worldviews and atheist philosophy, but they don't exist. An atheist world view is whatever world view an atheist happens to hold, which is limited only to anything other than "believes god exists". Atheist philosophy is any philosophy not founded on belief in god.
Quoting Noble Dust
Atheism isn't apophatic in nature because it doesn't claim to gain any knowledge about god through negation. Rejecting arguments, evidence, and reasoning for god's existence is not the same as claiming to know something about god through negation; it's claiming to know nothing about god: it's lacking belief. An absence of evidence for god is not evidence of the absence of god.
I have no atheist beliefs... Only lack of theistic beliefs, which makes me therefore an atheist... Why am I an atheist? Because of my rejections of theistic beliefs and my possession of agnostic beliefs (which pertain to the knowability of god, not whether or not I therefore believe).
Quoting Noble Dust
It's really the case in general, but the distinctions generally only matter when we're trying to explain what we believe, don't believe, and why, to other people.
Quoting Noble Dust
For me and most atheists atheism is the statement that "I don't have knowledge or belief of or in any god(s)". How do I doubt that? I do have knowledge? Post-modernism is a rejection of knowledge, which is why the post-modernist expression of atheism usually takes the form of theological non-cognitivism.
Quoting Noble Dust
Give me a single solitary example, just one tenet will do, of so called "atheistic philosophy" that represents Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany. Stalin wasn't a secular humanist, and Hitler was a Christian along with his entire army: they weren't informed by atheism.
If secular humanism is what you were referring to though, then if you happen to live in a western first world country just take a look around you. The secular society you enjoy with modern laws informed by progressive moral standards is the product that rationally follows from my robust worldview. So far it's been more successful than any other set of basic principles in human history.
Quoting Noble Dust
One is zealotry without understanding and the other would be an actual implementation of the ideals which founded the bolshevik party.
Quoting Noble Dust
I don't ridicule people, I ridicule ideas and beliefs, but with that said, there's a balance between ridicule and the salient criticisms contained within the ridicule which makes it more or less effective.
If I make fun of Trump's hands, then I'm getting nowhere and persuading nobody worth persuading. If I make fun of Trump's business failures and utter lack of experience, that's something else entirely. Not all ridicule is warranted, in my opinion it must contain valid criticism and be for a purpose. Lampooning corrupt politicians is highly honorable in this tradition.
Quoting Noble Dust
So for me pain and pleasure are primary, and for you spiritual value is primary. Are you sure that spiritual value isn't a composite of emotional and intellectual pleasures?
Quoting Noble Dust
I'm still trying to explain my points to you, proving them comes afterward. My argument for atheism comes in the form of rebuke and rejection of theistic arguments. My argument for empiricism and comes in the form of science (generally). My argument for humanism comes in the form of existential value derived from pain and pleasure as a primary values. My argument for secularism is a combination of all three of these things: It's observable and demonstrable that secular societies better promote desirable moral values (we can discuss these) more effectively than theocracies.
Unless you've got proof of god up your sleeve my atheism is not at risk. Unless you've got the key to ultimate spiritual pleasure or some game changing primary value above and beyond pain and pleasure, my humanist values are beyond reproach. Unless you've got a vision for a society not partially founded on spiritual freedom (including freedom from spirituality; secularism) then I'm not about to erect any altars.
Quoting Noble Dust
Metaphor and analogy are somewhere in-between poetry and prose, I figured it would help you to interface with my ideas since there is some persistent confusion.
So let's say you're a wanderer and run with that. If bad weather comes where do you take shelter as a gypsy? Do you camp out in the nearest shelter? To dispense with the metaphor, do you have any consistent foundation for your moral beliefs?
Quoting Noble Dust
I was hoping that you would attack these positions so I could demonstrate how robust they are. Which additional positions would you recommend which wouldn't fit in with them?
Religion was already in decline (in the west) beginning with the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment on the order of two to five hundred years ago. I do think that sure, region is a very powerful force and historically speaking, yes I would also predict it to prevail in the end.
But form my limited perspective I would predict that in so doing, religion will either:
a)
Change drastically for having to directly and successfully addressed the substantial shift in values and human understanding and character that continues to occur over the modern period, thanks to thinkers like Kant and Nietzsche, and developments like modern Science. (I don't think this could be done without a new figure or series of figures like Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammad)
b)
Horribly misunderstand the current philosophical situation and basically put a very functional band-aid on our situation, likely leading to a highly religious period of stagnation and probably some form of oppression, or at best, delaying the true confrontation of the problems of values, subjectivity and freedom by a number of centuries.
This is all conjecture though, take it with a grain of salt.
Current ideologies and indeed promoted with similar ardor as with traditional religion, that is true.
You have evangelists that spread the true word.
You have a lithurgy.
You have to redeem yourself, become a true believer. It's a faith issue thinly disguised in reason.
All that in various political ideologies in use today. The fact is that when the society has become more secular, the trappings of a religion work very effectively. Some people just don't notice it.
Boy, I even wrote a paper on that! Not published, of course.
My point was the same: People needed, it seemed to them, an external force to protect them. Danger came in many ways: disease, but not just disease: crop failure, enemy attacks, fire, flood, even meteorite hits (ask the mainstream dinosaurs) and attack by wild animals. People froze to death in the winter, and starved to death during the whole year. Lords, landlords, had absolute power over the serfs.
Obviously their only recourse was superstition, to stave off the "evil". It has been seen (not by me) since prehistoric times, the invocation of protection via prayer, sacrifice, covenants.
The spread of atheism occurred at times when less and less superstitious dogma was deemed as needd for survival. There were sporadic atheists at all times in history, but the real blow to the Church came in the time of the establishment of the first secular universities. Whenever that was. Professors were smart to recognize that the world operated on cause-effect relationships, and they eliminated the need for a deity from their weltanschauung. But people who needed to survive by avoiding natural or human-made disasters still believed in superstitions. Secular professors worked in cities, with stable income, the cities were walled so protected from enemy attacks, and there was some medical help available when needed. They felt secure, they did not need prayer. So they cast god aside.
The growing number of proletars and bourgizisaiaidfise (I can't spell French words, with a glee) came a new era of "pretend" religioosity, where people believed in some sort of creator, but they did not depend on it for too much.
This lasted into the middle of the last century, in most of Europe, or to the nineteen-twenties in Russia, where Communism obliterated religions in the main.
The true, unforced era of atheism came with the prosperity of post-war Western Europe. Bellies were full, no war, disease or pestilence. Penicillin was a saviour. Education became free, so did medicine, and so did welfare, unemployment insurance and retirement income. Life became good.
In America, according to this explanation of atheism, the lack of medicare and the proliferation of guns stop Atheism. That's why the strong resistence against gun control and against medicare. People love to stick with their ideologies, it is the strongest force of cohesion between members of the tribe, so it's the strongest social value and the strongest survival value for a community. Their common beliefs.
America is not atheist for this reason. Superstition is a major part of life, to stave off the evil that causes financial ruin via sickness that's too expensive to handle, yet one must pay for it. It can come any time, any direction; it is random. The randomness is what keeps the superstition alive. Because to fight it, you need to appeal to a god, and gods are, let's face it, fickle. They sometimes grant wishes sent to them in prayer, and sometimes they don't. It's completely random. Actually, so random that you almost could say the gods don't even listen... because they don't exist.