Poll: Religious adherence on this forum
Let's try and determine some of the religious demographics or lack thereof of this forum, shall we?
Edit: Maybe put "other" if you want to see the results of the second question but are not religious.
Edit: Maybe put "other" if you want to see the results of the second question but are not religious.
Comments (160)
(add Pastafarianism? :p )
I don't see how.
Not if being a religious person requires belief in a personal (and so bewilderingly human) God.
Quoting Thorongil
Formerly, a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now, Stoic.
nemo judex in sua causa (Y)
When you phrase it like that, I don't know why you left, lol.
Not particularly surprising.
It's a rather daunting list, isn't it? One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic--these are the Four Marks, or Attributes, of the (true) Church. "One" because God is one, and the Church is the Body of God (Christ). "Holy" because the Church has a special mission, i.e. it is set apart for a special purpose by God. "Catholic" because it's universal. "Apostolic" because the Church carries on the tradition of the apostles, and the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, and the bishops the Pope appoints are thereby appointed by the authority of that apostle.
Do you mind telling us the thumb-nail sketch of why you went from Catholic to Stoic?
An interesting and legitimate caution. But although a Stoic partakes in Nature and the creative intelligence which permeates it, and so can be said to have an interest in it, a Stoic doesn't judge Nature in the sense referred to in this legal maxim. So, I think I'm okay.
The Church derived a good deal from Stoicism and ancient philosophy in general, so I think an appreciation for it has always been there. But I think it unreasonable to believe in a personal God, God becoming man through an "immaculate" conception, working miracles while on Earth, being crucified by Romans, coming back to life 3 days later, coming to judge the living and the dead, heaven and hell, and the rest of the doctrine I think a true Catholic must believe. It's too cluttered and too confining a conception of God for me. I find it hard to believe such a God created or abides in the universe. We're a very small part of the universe. The Stoic conception of an God immanent in nature is one I find appealing and doesn't require that I accept the various, and sometimes strange, views of divinity popular in the late Roman Empire which Christianity absorbed. The ethics of Stoicism is admirable. It provides an example of a way of living morally and tranquilly and doesn't demand a commitment to the supernatural.
I appreciate the mutually interconnected and interdependent ontology vis-a-vis the virtue of existence and being a part of nature, but in the case of radical evil along with consciousness and free-will, I find myself drawn to the categorical imperative. How you live your life, your frame of mind and the decisions that you make reflect your overall clarity to become a part of this nature, but does it not also enable you to judge it?
I'm on my phone, will love to write more on this subject but alas, off to work. Until this evening.
However, I effectively live a secular life, so I am not religious.
On the choice of religion I chose 'other' because I am not an adherent, or even an aspiring adherent, of any kind of organized religion. The religion I believe is closest to the truth is Christianity.
I also want to clarify that by "conversion" I mean an actual transformation of one's way of being, and not simply an experience that causes one to become an adherent of some faith that might be believed to guarantee personal salvation, or a disciple of some set of practices, that might be believed to lead to personal liberation, enlightenment or some such thing.
When I first encountered 'spiritual philosophy' (I put it in quotes, because I'm never very happy with the word 'spiritual') it was through popular Eastern mysticism titles, like Autobiography of a Yogi, and Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. At the time I discovered them, I didn't think of them as being religious books at all. I thought that 'spiritual enlightenment' was a completely different matter to what had been taught to me as 'religion'. Had you asked me at the time, I would have said that i was not interested in religion, and that these kinds of books weren't religious books.
But over the years my view changed. One thing that changed it was Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind ( a series of informal lectures on Soto Zen). One point that is stressed in Soto Zen is 'sitting (in meditation) without any gaining idea'. The message was, learn to sit 'zazen' - then commit yourself to that practice every day. But don't think you're going to gain something from it! Because that becomes a 'selfish gaining idea', which is self-defeating and undermines the very point of sitting in the first place.
So then I started to realise that devoting yourself to such a practice, whilst consciously not trying to 'get something from it', is a religious practice. because of the spirit in which it's done.
Voila - conversion.
(After pursuing that kind of practice for some time, I came to re-appraise my understanding of Christian religion. I think, maybe, had I been exposed to that kind of approach to Christianity, I might have stayed with it, but I find that the kind of religious activities that go on in Christian churches aren't generally informed by that kind of understanding.)
But, with respect to the question of conversion - conversion experiences are basically 'aha' moments. They're those moments when suddenly - it's always suddenly - you see or realise something that you had never known or appreciated previously. It's like - oh, that's what that means. And when you see it, it changes how you see many other things. It's actually a kind of re-configuration, literally a transformation of perception. The Greek term for it is 'metanoia' (the meaning of which ought to be clear from even an amateur grasp of Greek philosophical terminology.) But that re-organisation or re-configuration of cognition is what 'conversion' means - it's not simply adopting a self-description.
No.
Quoting Thorongil
None.
Buddhism is chill though so I said that.
Then you shouldn't have. Don't fook with my polls, man!
Apostolic United Brethren.
I liked my religious up-bringing, so I have not found fault with religion, per se.
So, for me it's about the disconnect between the ideal and the practical. And I'm ultimately an idealist in every way. And that's why I vacillate.
I said "Other" under the first pole, and "Christian" under the second, even if neither is exactly accurate.
Thank you for sharing, you do write your personal experiences with such clarity that, regarding the above mentioned, for me it is not a realisation of something that I had never known or appreciated, but rather a realisation of something that I did know, something subconscious that I may have always felt but failed to articulate and so the 'aha' moment is almost like making sense of these feelings. I had an aha moment one time when I was 15 on a long train ride to the country and I had an old copy of The Last Days of Socrates, where ironically my journey in life probably started to begin.
Actually that is much nearer to what I probably meant to say. It is that recognition, not of something you didn't know previously, but the meaning of something you knew already. Which, I think, is very near the meaning of Plato's 'anamnesis', 'un-forgetting'.
I agree about the "remembering".
It might seem odd that religion is bothered by whether we believe or not. However, that's not the case. Religion in general deals with the unknown - god, soul, death, etc. So, it is not surprising that there's so much debate on the issue. We're stymied by lack of critical evidence and that opens the door to endless speculation. Sometimes I feel like we should just wait - we'll die eventually and ''hopefully'' solve this ancient riddle.
Yes, hopefully not go to hell, >:)
I'm not sure I understand your point. But I think we've been ill-served by the belief we're apart from Nature rather than a part of it. I think that misapprehension or conceit has resulted in a great deal of harm. From it arises dualisms of all sorts, an unhealthy and even lunatic self-regard, self-righteousness (we're made in God's image), the view that nature exists for our benefit and use, etc. and, I suppose, the view that we stand in judgment of nature. For me, it's part of the attraction of Stoicism that it avoids these misunderstandings.
I think Stoicism is consistent with the more reasonable view that we're nothing more, or less, than inhabitants of a speck in an unimaginably large universe who are capable of thought and reason. The Stoic belief in God (I don't know that you have to believe in order to be a Stoic) also seems more reasonable. If a God of such a universe exists, it seems unreasonable to think God is particularly or peculiarly interested in us. If God is not of the universe, we can know nothing of God because we can know only the universe, or rather our small part of it. So if there be a God, God is immanent in the universe. I think Spinoza derived a great deal from the Stoics, though it seems he may not have thought so. In any case, I think they thought of God and what is good along the same lines.
The ancient Stoics accepted a kind of determinism. I personally think the question or "problem" of free will isn't worth much thought. It makes no difference to how we live; we'll continue to make choices and find that better choices result from being thoughtful. The problem of evil is, I think, is the result of our belief that the universe exists for us and should be responsive to our concerns. We came along long after the universe began, though, and we're rather responsive to it.
But I'm better off waiting for you to explain what you're point is. I do ramble on, once started.
I have some fondness for Zen Buddhism, but purely as kind of a loose, pragmatic pop philosophy a la, say Joe Hyams' Zen in the Martial Arts or Shunryu Suzuki's Zen Mind/Beginner's Mind.
T'would be nice if it had, it's a great book, indeed! But I think it is more the case that it has become a major cultural influence in a minor area of contemporary culture.
When one thinks of radical evil as being demonstrative of an innate condition, how does this reflect the interconnectedness of Nature? Whilst I appreciate your view particularly that humanity conceitedly have an unhealthy and even lunatic self-regard, self-righteousness (we're made in God's image) and I could not have said it better myself, this is not a dualism but rather a natural consequence of consciousness and free-will and thus Kant' categorical imperative is a moral alternative that sheds a more clear light than the stoics on overcoming radical evil. We stand in judgement of our nature to become one with Nature.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
There appears to be a necessity epistemically for people to conform to a system or belief, whether it is a particular religion, a culture, a philosophy, even other people like parents or girlfriends, and to categorise oneself as a 'stoic' or a 'catholic' enables a determined boundary that prevents feelings of separateness and angst that autonomy and free-will often engender. The last sentence you say reflects a Kantian moral necessity and you are precisely right, that by having 'faith' in God - what is Good or Perfect - though God is immanent, neither existing nor non-existent, we reflect the cyclic regularity between ourselves and the material world and become one with Nature through moral consciousness. Thus by epistemically conforming to God, we seek subjectively to improve ourselves independent of conformity to the imperfect or finite, or what is worldly. By becoming this rational, autonomous agent, we become aware of the reasonable illusions, human conceit and the narcissistic self-regard that conflicts with the ebb and flow of Nature.
I am unsure of whether Spinoza derived much from the Stoics but there are certainly a plethora of comparable themes that are worthy of discussion; even so, the categorical imperative functions as a synthesis between the passions and our will that he believes the Stoics failed to adequately command, as you yourself say the ancient Stoics accepted a kind of determinism. Whilst I am nonetheless open for you to ameliorate an alternative to this view, without transcending to a rational, autonomous being governing our own behaviour that mimics the ideal of Nature or God, we will continue to be responsive to choices that conform to people or concepts or things that lacks the free-will or consciousness necessary to become moral or to overcome radical evil.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Ramble away; there is nothing more pleasurable for me than reading highly articulate ramblings about such subjects. The post is merely touching the surface as I am trying to explain a rather intense subject without the intensity.
I find many of the assumptions made about us and our world (e.g. subject/object split) and God (e.g. God as an extant being) to be questionable, and this debate almost always seems to move within a particular sphere of understanding in which guiding assumptions about our way of being are taken for granted, and these in turn frame the alternatives.
Tentatively, though, I'd classify myself as a pantheist--or even panentheist--if I had to categorize myself, and, if I'm not mistaken, these can be found among adherents of all the religions you offered as options, although typically as marginalized and persecuted minorities within them.
Wasn't it Schopenhauer who referred to pantheism as 'atheism with a happy face,' or something of that sort?
To avoid any misconstrual to the suggestion of memories of former or otherworldly cognitive states, what I was attempting to convey was that each of us have existential experiences and cognitive abilities that interact in ways that sometimes we are unable to articulate or express linguistically or semantically, particularly when we are young. We form emotional or subconscious patterns of experience and habitual behavioural responses that language articulates to a conscious state, which is why such 'aha' moments can be so relieving. So, sometimes we may have an intuitive feeling, emotions attempting to convey suggestions through anxiety or depression etc, these tend to disappear when one becomes capable of realising why it is there in the first place. This is why they say that philosophy is a language.
Right - perfectly true. But, it's not so simple, because each of us are also instantiations of cultural and psychic archetypes, so are born with innate abilities and predispositions. I think, for that matter, a great deal of Plato can be interpreted, or re-interpreted, as his intuitive insights into the archetypical patterns within the mind. But, you're speaking to a Buddhist with Platonist leanings, and both Buddhists and Platonists accept the reality of re-birth, whereas in modern culture such ideas are highly non-PC.
Indeed, even cognitive capacity refines our mental representations hence why each of us appreciate various interpretations of the world outside of ourselves and in a cyclic manner are able to objectively reflect or mirror ourselves back that epistemically elevates us to conscious beings. It is why I feel that belief-systems inhibit the capacity for an individual to refine this process. I think intuition is really the subjective key to autonomy that as we distinguish the properties of experience or representations, we demonstrate a type of trust in ourselves and that is the beginning of learning to rationalise independently. Only then can we really apply ourselves correctly, that is with moral consciousness (love) as we become aware of the inconsistencies and reduce the overall conflict with our instinctual passions. Whilst I am not in accordance with Buddhism or even Platonism, when saying I think I am attempting to elucidate this separation not as a display of the superiority of my own beliefs, but out of respect for the freedom we each have to believe in what we want, and I respect yours.
I don't think of it as "a natural consequence of consciousness and free-will" because I think it's decidedly unnatural. In living we're part of the world and as part of it we continually interact with other parts of the rest of the world; we wouldn't exist without it, we wouldn't think without it. I think we're aware of this and conduct ourselves in "ordinary day to day life" accordingly. Somehow, though, we've come to believe that there is some "us" distinct from the rest of the world, distinct even from our bodies some cases. I think it's as part of our unnatural tendency to make this distinction between "us" and the rest of the world, that we come to consider whether we're compelled to do what we do by the rest of the world or are able to do what we choose. But instead, I think, what we think and do is the result of a kind of transaction or interaction with other parts of the world of which we're a part. Because we have the capacity to reason (which the ancient Stoics thought to be characteristic of the divine aspect of the world) what we do can be the result of intelligent interaction.
The ancient Stoics tended towards determinism because (I think) they thought the Divine Reason permeates the world, and so all that takes place is in accordance with that reason, in which we share. So in living in accordance with nature we do what the Divine Reason as Providence or Fate "intends." At the end of the Enchiridion of Epictetus we find these quotes:
"Conduct me, Jove, and you, 0 Destiny,
Wherever your decrees have fixed my station."
Cleanthes
"I follow cheerfully; and, did I not,
Wicked and wretched, I must follow still
Whoever yields properly to Fate, is deemed
Wise among men, and knows the laws of heaven."
Euripides, Frag. 965
I tend to think this is more in the nature of advice on how to live than anything else, ancient philosophy being more concerned with that than philosophy is at this time.
I'm not certain what you mean by "radical evil" but would guess is it involves conduct resulting from the extreme or excessive desire or urge to harm or exercise power over other people, possess certain things, self-indulgence, etc. Stoicism teaches certain things are beyond our control, and only that which is in our control should be our concern--what's beyond our control should be a matter of "indifference." So, a Stoic would have no desire or need to accumulate things, harm or control others, steal, lie; no desire or need to do evil of any kind.
Since when is that?
We conduct ourselves in such a manner to nurture our fear that soon enough we become jaded in the monotony, dependent on its repetition to safeguard our feelings of security and take for granted the extraordinary opportunities available to us. The fact is that we are extraordinary and sometimes a whole lifetime can pass with nothing, no greatness or depth of feelings, no passionate love neither any risks, and for so many that horrible state of mind is adequate. Who cares who you marry, as long as the culture you belong with accepts it. Who cares about challenging yourself. It that even being alive? To transcend to experience this 'we' you speak of requires authenticity, an honesty to ourselves; we can tell lies to person after person in order to gain their approval or garner support that enables an adequate foundation to justify our fears, but therein lies the paradox. To authentically experience Nature, one must become autonomous first before consciously choosing to be a part of Nature. It is the way of consciousness itself, hence my original remarks on free-will. We need to acknowledge our distinction, our separateness, the fear of death and of being alone first before genuinely forming a bond with Nature where the experience of 'I' becomes absorbed into the 'we'.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Reason is a tool and its divine characteristic is its capacity to precipitate moral consciousness; intelligent interaction enables a mirroring that elicits epistemic progress that our jaded ordinary fail to experience. When we set aside belief-systems - thus form reason without the illusions - and focus on God, Good, Nature, this interaction wholly becomes about the development of moral consciousness and as God is the omnipresent, the universe, the infinite, we thus become a part of this 'we' that the unnatural, radical evil no longer evokes its mindless influence. Reason thus becomes superior to our instinctual nature.
“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.” Kant.
This is grounded in the categorical imperative, wille and wilkur.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
You speak of the golden mean and certainly a balance between such extremes is a necessity to influence control over the passions, but radical evil is a corrupted moral disposition that ignores the duty to empower our moral constitution. A human condition that neglects in preference to a mindlessness that subordinates moral agency into the powers of our instinctual drives. To a degree, Stoicism has the same strict regulatory behaviour necessary to defeat this subjective influence, but again, clarity is somewhat wayward in that it must be uncompromising as the categorical imperative is to our obligation and duty to morality and is against this psychic determinism that the Stoics trust. This is why choice - free-will - and authenticity - autonomy - is absolute if one is to take genuine responsibility on the commitment to love.
Has philosophy impacted your view / interaction with the Scriptures in any way? For example has reading a particular philosopher / philosophy inclined you towards the Scriptures or got you interested in God?
I'm asking this because recently I've become more convinced that philosophy isn't needed to come to understand the Scriptures, in fact quite the contrary, that philosophy can lead some on to blind alleys. So I'm curious how others stand on this issue.
This is a critical insight. Ingenuously* is the way they were intended to be read. The narrative of scripture is compelling.
The "trick" for secular educated people who are disinclined to take anything on faith is to hold on to the noble, generous reading while at the same time understanding that the history of the texts and the faith is not simple and straightforward. Fundamentalists are people who can not tolerate the cognitive dissonance required to hold these two ideas together.
*"The original sense was ‘noble, generous'"
Is this only true of texts that purport to explain how the world came to be and what any creator(s) want(s) us to do?
It may be that some of us must go through what you describe in order to accept that we're a part of nature, but I hope it's not necessary that we do so, as I think this can occur to us simply by acknowledging what is the case. That should be easier now that it's been well established that there are billions of galaxies in the universe. The ancients can be forgiven for thinking we're the most important part of the universe, but I don't see how that can reasonably be maintained--or believed--now.
For me, there's nothing diminishing about being "a child of the Earth and the starry heavens." And while the Stoics and other ancient philosophers may have felt that humans were distinctive, and separate, as being endowed with reason, I don't think they suffered from the fear of death and of being alone as it seems many do now and have done for quite some time, but managed nonetheless to possess wisdom and formulate high standards of morality which I think remain unrivaled.
I think the fear of death and feeling of being alone is something that developed fairly late in our history and has its basis at least in part in the glorification of the self which found its most extreme expression in Romanticism, subsequent "isms" like Existentialism and Nihilism being something akin to symptoms of the resulting "hangover."
Quoting Agustino
No. Generally scripture has made secular philosophy look weak by comparison. I'd been losing interest in philosophy for some time before, though.
A lot of changed assumptions, I guess. New respect for the value of tradition, less respect for the ideological fashions of the present. A wider scope that makes one's own problems seem less interesting and more surmountable.
I was so fearless as a child that my plans to runaway from home always ended up 100 meters away at the local park, eating all the food I prepared to sustain the energy required for the so-called long hike toward somewhere else as I spent hours just staring up at the stars and milky way. I would end up walking home weary eyed early in the morning when the silence became frightfully deafening and I began to sense reality was not as comfortable as my desires.
The moment we feel this angst we are automated in our response to alleviate the negative sensation and these responses can be highly irrational to a point where self-deception inappropriately orchestrates the decision-making process. The more people you have supporting your delusions - if one can be self-deceptive, one can be deceptive to others - the more likely it will solidify as reality and the angst falsely dissipates because you assume these deceptions are truth.
Rousseau claimed that our state of nature is good, but it is civilisation that corrupts this innocence, that society is artificial and unnatural and indeed, when you observe the contradictions in society today such as the capitalist delusions marketing concepts of beauty and popularity that reinforce the illusion that pleasure can be derived in becoming the very image that they create, it is not difficult to see the point Rousseau was trying to make. People blindly believe that if they follow an image and look a certain way, than they will be happy even if they give or do absolutely nothing; they find satisfaction and fulfilment when others approve of them, others caught in the exact same delusion. In that, people start to lose their dignity and no amount of hedonism can heal the sickness. As Fromm says: "It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas and feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing on reason or mental health.”
So it is not necessarily the physical fear of death but rather a way of overcoming narcissism by recognising our finitude of existence that in turn liberates the process towards authenticity. Fromm speaks of this angst as being the fear of our separateness, of our very autonomy and that we end up forming false symbiotic attachments to avoid confronting the detachment necessary to form and apply a genuine and mature love. Love is moral consciousness, it is happiness, it is the very core of our existence and yet if everyone wants love but no one gives it, what exactly happens? It would be wholly naive to believe that there is nothing wrong with this world and if you cared for Nature, the 'we', you would be wholly righteous, disgusted at injustice and at all things morally deplorable. This is where I have some trouble with the Stoics.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
There may be exceptions, but the danger lies in the authenticity behind this acknowledgement that render those exceptions comparatively irrelevant. There are a plethora of examples that exemplify the simplicity of self-deception and the capacity to alter facts to suit a personal agenda and solidify delusions of grandeur. Even with the accessibility of knowledge, our understanding of the vastness of the universe, there continues the same cyclic repetition century after century. “Ignorance is the root and stem of all evil."
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Aside from the scale, the technology and variations in cultural subtleties, I see no differences in time whether now or historically. We appear to be consistently repeating ourselves in different ways and no amount of knowledge changes the condition of human stupidity.
This quite unfairly implies that those who self-identify as atheists are not open to arguments. One can be an atheist (in the common sense of not believing in any deities or the supernatural) with an open mind, and most atheists probably think of themselves that way.
I myself gave little thought to god and religion until later in life, but for as long as I remember myself I had, as they say, no religious bone in me. Emotionally, subconsciously, a religious belief or practice just never seemed like a live option. When I did turn my intellect toward these matters, I became increasingly confirmed in my atheism. Though of course I like to think of myself as being open to persuasion, I have not seen any argument that would move me away from this position.
I read Jewish and Christian scriptures for the first time in full at a fairly mature age. While I did not expect a religious conversion, I was actually surprised to find my attitude dimming towards these scriptures, especially the Christian ones. A rather unattractive image of Jesus as a cult leader gradually took shape as I was reading the New Testament: moody, alternately ingratiating and imperious, soppy and short-tempered.
I'm painting a front room and I carefully relocate a little spider who had set up shop in the corner. I consider last year when I allowed two different mother spiders to raise their tiny young in the comfort and seclusion of the back room. I groan.
The problem is that insects and spiders, especially little ones, are just so fucking amazing. All that complicated stuff packed inside a little device that can spin webs, make little underground caverns, and yes, fly. Some of them can fly.
Dangerous ones... not so much, but yes: last year I felt something on my face and I casually brushed it. It fell onto my t-shirt. It was black. With a little red spot. Shit.
I did take it out back and earnestly telepath to it that I was sorry. I crushed her.
I'm still sorry. I need a priest.
I don't think the Stoics believed there's nothing wrong with the world, or that the world is perfect, as that would require them to take the position that we can't improve ourselves. The Roman Stoics in particular were concerned with how we can do so. In fact, ethics and how to achieve happiness was their primary if not their only concern.
Spinoza, I believe, felt that the problem of evil is one that troubles us because we're finite beings. Not a satisfying point of view, but one which is understandable when the evil in consideration is, for example, the result of natural disasters (provided we don't assume ourselves to be God's favorites in all the universe). The Stoics certainly thought that certain conduct was wrong, and those professing to be Stoic have refused to do what they thought was wrong even when the result was their deaths at the hands of some of the more disagreeable Roman emperors. But I don't think they would think it desirable to be disgusted or outraged at the injustice of the world or deplorable conduct, because I think they would believe being disgusted and outraged wouldn't serve to prevent the wrong but would serve to unduly disturb and distract those opposing it.
A Black Widow; I just recently found out that the Redback Spider, the second most venomous spider in Australia, which is not really at all aggressive (or even life-threateningly venomous, except perhaps for children and the elderly) is a member of the Black Widow family. I have encountered countless Redbacks while working as a landscape gardener, and I never deliberately kill them, and always feel remorse when I accidentally do.
Yes, I hate to kill anything unnecessarily and I refuse to disturb the numerous Golden Orb Spider, and other, webs around my house. Even the relatively innocuous (compared to Funnel Webs) Redbacks in the house would be a bit of a worry, but I have very rarely encountered them there, instead usually outside under rocks and sheets of corrugated iron and the like. How about your Black Widows; are they commonly house dwellers?
I heard recently that the idea that the female Black Widows devour their mates after copulation is a myth; that they only do that when stressed; i.e in captivity. I have never heard that female Redbacks devour their mates, in captivity or otherwise; or behave funny in the autumn. Maybe they're more laid back than their American cousins? They don't have Trump to deal with I guess.
34% religious on a philosophy forum! :-O
Being religious and being philosophical have two different senses: unlike the philosophical the religious ultimately allow reference ad-hoc beyond human comprehension: e.g. "god did it!", which is philosophically unsatisfying.
Generally speaking, the overall assumption that happiness somehow involves less in judging evils than it does in immersing oneself in the appreciation of Beauty, whereby one can reach a higher state by being non-judgemental to me is fallacious and fails in the 'We'. We can always improve ourselves, that should be a principle that never escapes us, but attaining happiness is not about ignorance of reality but rather righteousness. That if one authentically chooses to become one with Nature, the suffering of others is as much a wound to them as a deep cut on the arm would be and it is nonsensical to assume that ignoring the wound would suddenly make it go away rather than fester into something worse, even fatal. When one transcends to this consciousness of 'we', justice becomes a responsibility, whereby happiness is formed within moral consciousness. Morality becomes Beauty. The cycle between ourselves and the external world becomes the same, which is consistent improvement.
How is 'finite being' relational to the quality of the enduring 'we'? The children that I love and support will go on loving and supporting their children; the happiness of others is as much a part of me as my happiness may be to them. There is no finite. Correct conduct naturally evolves when one learns how to give love and where the happiness of others is instrumental to our own happiness, reaching a balance between fighting injustice whilst appreciating nature, love, consciousness. One falls in love with justice.
There is a deceptive ego, one hidden behind many systems of thought that purport reaching a higher plane of existence, of reaching a state of happiness can be achieved through what is merely the justification of ignorance, an image of kindness and morality but with no consciousness; people are becoming vegetarian or vegan but are only doing so because of the image not because they actually have a conscience for instance, thus a lack of consciousness in their behavioural decision-making. Fighting injustice, the products of your tireless endeavours and love for others is the expression of this authenticity. The fruits of ones labour, the good works that one does.
Says who?
I'm quite philosophically satisfied with that statement.
No; religion allows for reference to things beyond human comprehension not ad-hoc, but because there are things beyond human comprehension. The religious or mystical faculty is what comprehends this aspect of reality; the reasoning aspect (what you erroneously refer to here as the "philosophical") cannot do so.
What's ad-hoc and non-philosophical is the arbitrary assumption of a faculty for comprehending things beyond comprehension.
What if it's not necessarily an "arbitrary assumption" at all, but a lived experience; and one that you cannot understand simply because you have never lived it?
To have or live the experience is neither necessary nor sufficient for understanding it. Moreover, it is relatively easy to evoke the experience of the presence of something covert or incomprehensible, for example by will power, empathy, drugs, or indoctrination/psychological suggestion. Like the experience of nothing.
If I was truly deeply wounded every time someone or something suffered harm or was the victim of some evil I'd be incapacitated. A Stoic accepts that there are things beyond one's control, but as Epictetus said will do the best that can be done with what's in his/her control.
I would say having the experience is certainly necessary for understanding it. Whether it is sufficient or not might depend, inter alia, upon the kind of understanding in question. Certainly people generally have understandings of their experiences, but it doesn't follow that they ever know what the absolute cause of an experience is, or even what the relative causes of their experiences are.
Then they sound like they are temperamentally close to Redbacks. Funnelwebs, on the other hand, are hyper-aggressive. Do you have an aggressive counterpart for our Funnies?
It's not an arbitrary assumption though, it's an identification. What is identified is that which is beyond human comprehension. It is identified as intelligible in principle, but unintelligible to the human intellect. This is due to apprehended deficiencies in the human being. There are some things which the human being cannot comprehend. To claim that it is intelligible in principle though, requires the assumption of an intellect higher than the human intellect, which can comprehend it. If there is no such intellect, capable of comprehending what is beyond the capacities of the human intellect, then we cannot correctly claim that this part of reality is intelligible.
I did not mean to imply that atheists are not open to arguments. Rather, I think there tends to be a difference in thought between someone who identifies as agnostic and someone who identifies as atheist. A better way of putting it, I tend to put some kind of stock into theism, while atheists, who are open to new arguments, tend to find the category of beings labelled "gods" to have failed to meet up to a reasonable standard.
Yes, it's strange. Both this forum and its former incarnation are slanted towards atheism. In a survey of philosophers through history (which are not to be confused with people who write about philosophy -- including members of internet forums), the number of religious people would be far greater.
Through history? How is that a relevant comparison? I would assume that participants of this forum are our contemporaries - most of them, anyway.
This 2009 survey of academic philosophers had the following result:
God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%
Identification? Identification is the function of reference, and it is possible to refer to almost anything, such as fictious, alogical, or impossible things. But from reference it does not follow that the things we refer to would exist.
What remains arbitrary is the assumption of a faculty with which it would be possible to comprehend the incomprehensible. That's what's arbitrary and used ad-hoc by the religious and the mystics.
Sure, many of the great philosophers lived in societies in which they could be murdered if they would admit being agnostic or atheist. Most of their work, however, is philosophical, and does not rely on blind reference to divine authority.
If you are implying that many of the great philosophers were closet agnostics or atheists, I'd say that this is an ad-hoc, non-philosophical arbitrary assumption, made exclusively for the purpose of comprehending things beyond comprehension.
Quips aside (and that goes for SophistiCat as well), the debate about atheism is inconclusive because people don't agree on what the word "God" (or, "gods") refer to. If you accept the meaning given to the word by the "great philosophers" who wrote about it, then close to 0% of philosophers (great or small) would disagree about the existence and relevance of it. The problem is that people don't accept that meaning, often because of its historical baggage, which is a non-sequitur anyway. It is more a problem of semantics than a problem of ontology.
The clergy used to be brutal beyond comprehension.
As I explained, it is not arbitrary. We apprehend that there are limits to the human intellect. Because of these limits, there are things which the human intellect cannot comprehend. We assume that a higher intellect can comprehend these things, and this is not at all arbitrary. So it is based in the recognition that the incomprehensible is incomprehensible due to the deficiencies of the human being, not because of the properties of the thing itself. The thing itself is intelligible, but only to an intellect higher than the human intellect.
Quoting Mariner
Call it 'faculty' or 'higher intellect' or what you like. A possibility to comprehend the incomprehensible doesn't follow from there being limits to human knowledge, nor from things that we don't comprehend yet; obviously it is an arbitrary assumption.
A possibility to some day comprehend things that we don't comprehend yet, however, arises from research, and little prevents humans from doing research.
Yes, it's about time we get our rights, and get properly recognised!
Huh? What would different meanings of the word 'god' have to do with the fact that most of the great philosophers' works are based on argument, not blind reference to the authority of the divine or incomprehensible. That's why they're called philosophers, not preachers.
That does not an atheist make.
What follows from there being limits to the human intellect, is twofold: 1) that there are things which are incomprehensible to us, and 2) the possibility of a higher intellect. You put 1) and 2) together and you have the possibility of an intellect which can comprehend what is incomprehensible to us. Where is the arbitrary assumption? It appears to me like the only arbitrary assumption here is your arbitrary assumption that this is an arbitrary assumption.
No. There's another dangerous spider here called Brown Recluse, but they're shy.
So if you came across a funnel-web spider, would you kill it?
No, I'd try to catch it and take it the local hospital. From there it would presumably be taken to a lab where its venom would be 'milked' for antivenin.
Probably not as good as you might think, and certainly not as good as I'd like to be...
:-O
True :)
Quoting John
Quoting Mongrel
Quoting John
Awwww, so sweet (L)
Thanks darling
- Mongolian blessing
That was the case for me, too. I was raised so that there was no mention of religion at all, and I didn't have any religious friends--at least not where I knew anything of their religious views. This resulted in a situation where I knew almost nothing about religious beliefs until I was in my mid-teens.
When I finally learned something about religious beliefs, my reaction was to be flabbergasted--"You believe what?!?" I seriously thought that people were playing a big practical joke on me--a belief exacerbated by the fact that there are a lot of practical jokers, who'll go to pretty elaborate lengths at times, in my family and among friends.
The beliefs seemed completely absurd to me, and they still do.
I'm a bit surprised "theism' was as high as 14.6%.
So, an emotional reaction based on experience? Or no?
Word. Not necessarily obvious, but word.
Actually, I would put the percentage of theists lower since most "theists" in philosophy don't really take their religion seriously.
Most theistic discussions in the phil-of-religion begin and end with debates about the existence of God, which is not the real substance of religion. The real substance of religion is the lived experience of companionship with God. God is supposed to be a being with whom you can have a personal relationship. He is supposed to be a living reality; not just the conclusion of a sterile argument from natural theology.
Very, very few philosophers (I would say far less than 14.6%) actually focus on God as a living reality. One of them is Paul Moser. I highly recommend his work - which helped me greatly in my struggles to move past arguments and enter into a personal relationship with God.
Religious beliefs should seem absurd to those who haven't had any religious experiences - see 1 Cor. 2:14 (the whole chapter hits on the same theme).
We can just say that people who are unusually anal/Aspie-like may not have voted because of this.
Like an imaginary friend, but one you convince yourself is real.
If your imaginary friend can give you confidence to live, infinite hope, eternal life, strength, determination, resolution, etc. then sure, go ahead, believe in him!
Exactly, see, your imaginary friend isn't God, nor is he like God.
No, I don't see what you mean. And I don't have an imaginary friend.
It's easier said than done to believe that your imaginary friend will give you confidence to live, infinite hope, etc. But it's not easier said than done to believe that God will give that to you (in fact MANY people believe that). So the two are non comparable.
You Have the Right to Remain Silent, But Anything You Don’t Say May Be Used Against You.
In my case, I don't say a lot about God, and it gets used against me a lot. A long forgotten source said that belief is thinking the bridge will support you, whereas faith is stepping out on the bridge over the void. I have faith without belief, and that, by convention, is lunacy.
And for the last time, I don't have an imaginary friend.
Let's put it differently: do you have any projection of yourself?
Maybe God is the mental image of someone's hope and faith they view as necessary to keep on living.
Maybe you also have a mental image for your reasoning that you consider legitimate and dependable.
The consequences of that may entail a moderating owl coming around and moving the poll to the dustbin me thinks >:)
So what goes through your mind when you step on the bridge?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
A logical, scientific approach to God. Not sure it really counts as a religion, more its a position between theism and atheism.
Hardly surprising. For example in my country 3/4 of the people belong to a church (vast majority of them to the Lutheran State Church), yet only 27% of the people view themselves as religious.
Besides, today 'a religious person' might be defined a bit differently than before: a fundamentalist, a zealot or a person that believes that the Bible (the Koran etc.) is to be taken literally and anything other is heresy.
My background is similar. Christian. Picked up a mish mash of everything over the years, but predominately lean towards advaita, non-dualist, Buddhist flavours. I don't think the word religious applies to one who created his own spiritual patchwork, cut from the cloth of various faiths and philosophies. There is truth and untruth in all of them.
If I had wanted to express surprise, then I would've used a different emoticon. But instead, I raised an eyebrow. Let's just say that it's not something that I would do. For me, both would have to go hand in hand, otherwise it would seem superficial and pointless.
Best answer by far! :-)
I'm not saying this is necessarily what's going on, but it's not uncommon for people to look at "belonging to a religion" as being akin to ethnicity. One is "born into" the religion in question, due to one's family, one may have undergone various rituals under that religion as an infant or child--christening/baptism, bar/bat mitzvahs, etc., but one might not consider oneself religious despite this because one doesn't actually have any religious beliefs. Some people even do this while still going to church/temple/etc. occasionally--it's more of a social thing for them. They might choose to get married in a church/temple setting, and they might even socialize their kids into the religion in a similar way, despite a lack of religious belief, just because it's seen as a part of their family's tradition.
Agreed, good point. It's in that context that I sometimes label myself as being "Catholic".
I'm not Catholic in the way people typically use that word, as a choice one has made. Instead, I'm Catholic in a manner that is beyond choice. That is, I have hundreds of years of Catholic DNA up my family tree, and this genetic history is a source of influence which was built in to my brain before I was even born. I am a product of Catholic culture (as almost all of us are to one degree or another) but my beliefs don't align with Catholic doctrines very well at all.
I think like a Catholic, but I don't think what most Catholics think.
Yeah, I understand that, I just don't relate to it. Even if I was Christened as a child and whatnot, I still wouldn't call myself a Christian for those reasons. And to me at least, anyone who does this isn't really a true Christian. I don't see Christianity as something that superficial or accidental. It's not like your natural hair colour.
That is where the term ‘spiritual-but-not-religious’ applies. There are many people in that category nowadays.
[quote=Jake]I have hundreds of years of Catholic DNA up my family tree, and this genetic history is a source of influence which was built in to my brain before I was even born.[/quote]
I know just what you mean, but I wonder if it’s ‘genetic’ or actually ‘mimetic’, i.e. propogated through culture and language rather than, or in addition to, genes. After all, h. sapiens is subject to a very long period of extra-somatic conditioning in the 18 years from birth to adult-hood.
But I also accept archetypal psychology - that religious and spiritual beings and symbols are representations of, or instantiations of, archetypal realities that exist on the level of the collective psyche. Outside the writing of Jung and his followers, however, there is little recognition of these factors.
You belong to a religion if you believe what you're supposed to believe and do what you're supposed to do in accordance with that religion, otherwise it's just sentimental nonsense.
One in every 200 men alive today is a relative of Genghis Khan. How many identify as Mongols? How many go raiding on horseback with a bow and arrow?
The identification of faith by items declared to be accepted by the believer always seemed odd to me. If such and such is the case, why would anyone care if I swore to it being so?
The announcement seems too large. Uninteresting even.
Rather they’re recognized in different frameworks, such as social psychology, evolutionary psychology, etc.
Social beings need meaning, and religions are like fast food franchises: neat little mindless prepackaged nuggets of meaning that are efficiency spoon fed to the masses.
Heaven forbid anyone seek or think for themselves.
Sorry, can you say that again in English?
It's OK, I'll translate.
Religions all disagree with each other, and with science, that doesn't look too good for the modern theist, so let's make up some shit about 'archetypes' to make it all sound a bit more united. Oh... and we'd better make it on some 'special level' to prevent anyone actually checking whether it's real or not.
:lol: :up:
Things to consider and inform, but not necessarily follow as dogma.
You sound like a "Jordan Peterson" kind of Christian. I think that's a very respectable view, if that's the case. :smile: