Agnostiscism and atheism

@TheHermit,

The Hermit,

"But it seems that science and religion are always at loggerheads against each other."

Religion is against reason itself,it precieved and precieves reason as a threat.Because the church as gotten political in its efforts to invade the science classrooms of America, they have lost the respect of much of the population.I personally believe they should lose their tax exempt status. Very Happy

"I must say that I don't believe in "belief", I "believe" (if I may use the word) in experience. You see we all work within our paradigm, our knowledge gained from our experience in our "universe". None of us have quite the same "experience". We join groups because of our "harmony" with their ideas according to our experience."

This harmony of experiences between individuals forming a group,is first necessarily subjective,as truth,judgement,evaluation and even preciation are only subjective qualities.A group,religious or otherwise, which gets together to fortify what they wish to believe by acknowledging their subjective will into a unity.This unity is not going by experience,they are going on a highly unlikely inferance at best.God is not a tangiable experience,the desire for this divine father figure undoubtedly is the experience of a needy emotion---------which one either believes or disbelieves that faith has the ability to fulfill.

"Religion as well as science have their beliefs some believe in Math others their particular religion. Their paradigm has led them to it. But "belief" means to take another's experience as true and hence follow that belief."

Science is a self adjusting enterprize adaptable to new information,this is not something religion can claim.In order for a theory to maintain itself through time it must stand its ground through evidence and proofs relative to new said information.I know you wish to see them as equal but they are not,one requires reason the other faith,one is rational one is irrational.

Now another group has emerged, those who want to experience for themselves and not merely accept another's experience. Science has a boundary of the invisible, religion of the direct experience. Man like Jesus have transformed themselves by seeking the direct experience with "?" and found Mind. Science is now coming closer to "understanding" of Mind with "The Theory of Everything" or String Theory.

I am not sure what your point above is,religion could not be accused of trying to understand any new information.Hinduism may be an exception, very early in its ancient history it began interpreting its spirituality in psychological terms,thus it really has had nothing to fear from science,reason or even commonsense.

"Walter Russell was one such man that experienced Mind or God as most of us say. At that time we become dissatisfied with both religion and science for we are satisfied with Mind"

A satified mind,that is a little obsure my friend,are you saying mind and god same thing?

"Most of our Holy Books have this information, how to transform ourselves, but this is hidden from the curious. What we take as stories from our books are really lessons on how to achieve transformation. Man has understood the metaphors as prose instead of the poetry, the denotation instead of the connotation."

Very good point Hermit,but like I said the church does not deal well with new information, even when it is old new information.The institution of the church still insists today on a literal interpertation of the bible,in most cases, missing the message of the myth.

"Literalism kills" Joseph Campbell

1 Reply

@boagie,

I would like to jump in here and interject some thoughts, if I may be so bold.

One of the main features of religion, it seems, is its transcendent aspect. By 'transcendence' I am referring to that aspect in religion which goes beyond the temporal or temporary identity of the nation, the race, or the individual. That is to say the identity of people is finite in time whereas the transcendent religion is said to extend beyond the temporary and beyond the merely earthly, historical existence of these identities.

The transcendence of religion is that aspect which lives beyond the life identity of people and to which the people give of themselves. In that sense I would say that the person's religious identity is akin to a form of idealism and also contains all of the spiritual fervor and spiritual effort that is usually given to idealistic enterprises. What the people give to religion is taken to be that which they give to what they consider the very highest and the very greatest aspect of reality and nature itself.

Christianity in this sense is considered to be universal whereas the identity of a nation or a race or an individual is existentially grounded in time and place and lives only for a brief moment. Religious faith is faith in that highest level of the universe and the world, faith which negates the 'lower' contests of worldly power that obtains between races, nations, and individuals.

The worldly power struggles that occur between the nations, races and persons are struggles of the survival of their identities. In these worldly non-religious struggles the peoples sacrifice their lives in the violent struggle over the future of their identities. These worldly minded ones are forced to either kill or be killled in order to obtain a future in which their language, their culture, their race and their people will be victorious. They are forced to kill or be killed to maintain their historical identities.

The historical identity and mortality of the Christian, on the other hand, is not bound to violence and power struggles against races and nations. The mortal, worldly identity of the Christian is rather bound to their faith in what they perceive to be the highest aspects of the universe. The survival of the identity of a Christian is dependent upon their faith through which they are to attain immortality in god as opposed to violent worldly struggles for the security of their futures. The Christian turns his back upon worldly power precisely in the hopes of this immortality. Christian people are the ecclesia, those ones who are called out of the nations to follow not historical identity with its need for worldly survival, but rather they are called to folllow the universal message of the Bible. Christians are said to rely upon persuassion over force in order to dissolve the races and nations with their violence and power into the universal message of salvation.

Science is obviously a worldly enterprise and is therefore historical and temporary. The achievements of science as important as they are, will not last very long because all worldly things are temporary. Nations will die, cultures and languages will die and identities will eventually die and so too the achievements of science will someday fade away forever. Even the planet earth itself and the Sun will both eventually cease to exist. Religion is different in that it doesn't deal in temporary matters. Religion claims to deal in the highest matters which are said to be eternal (similiar to Plato's concept of immutable Forms or Ideas which are claimed to be the eternal sources of nature and the universe). Religion recognizes the finitude of all human endeavors and also calls evil the power that is required to maintain such endeavours, such as the endeavour to maintain a mortal existence in a world of competitive struggles.

Science is not the same as nature itself. Science is an historical project of mortal and finite people. Science is the working of nature in order to enhance the mortal and temporary life of humans. Science cannot magnify the identity of people beyond the brief moment of their lives. The philosophical question seems to be this: is there an eternal source of nature which is akin to the essence of mankind? If the answer is yes, then the importance of the essence of mankind or the soul, is greater than science because science is temporary. I would like to point out that Plato thought the soul more important than the finitude of the world (which he called 'the world of change' i.e. temporal existnece).

--Pythagorean

1 Reply

@boagie,

Boagie says....
Religion is against reason itself,it precieved and precieves reason as a threat.Because the church as gotten political in its efforts to invade the science classrooms of America, they have lost the respect of much of the population.I personally believe they should lose their tax exempt status. Very Happy

------------------------

Don't be so hard on religion my friend, science has its faults too. Everything that science rejects they call mythology! Look at Troy for example and look at how they talk about Zecharia Sitchin. Look at the rejection of the water erosion of the Sphinx. Look at the idiocy in the medical field. The medicine they give is causes more problems than the sickness itself.

I am trained as a scientist, computer science major (Mathematics), and I always remember my basic electronics class. We were talking about the formulas for resistors in parallel. I had come up with a inversional formula for 1/1 over R so the instructor said figure out 2 resistors in parallel, giving us the numbers; he turned around and I had my hand up. What's the answer John? I gave him the answer, right he said. Then he gave us 3 resistors in parallel turned around and saw my hand up. What's the answer John xxxx, right. lets wait for the others...10 minutes later two more came up with the answer. Ok 4 resistors in parallel, he turned around and saw my hand up. No! I don't believe it! What's the answer, xxx, right! We waited a while and no one came up with the answer. I said, you can give me any number of resistors in parallel and I'll give you an asnwer ( I was cocky then). He said after 4 resistors the formula gets very laborious, how did you do it??? I showed him how to do it, he looked at it (I did 9 resistors in parallel) and after 5 minutes he turned to the class and said; Forget what john did and do it like it is in the book! I am sure if he had the power I would have been burned at the stake!

I also remember the voltage formula was supposed to be linear but when we measured with a volt/ohm meter, it never was! But how about Chemical formulas! The ones with 1/2 atom + 1/4 other atom = compound! Have you ever seen a 1/2 atom!?

Let's face it Bogie, civilization is still in it's barbarian age. It all started when those barbarians burned Rome. Rome previously having burned the library. But being Latin I can always blame those barbarians from the caucus. We think we are so smart but heck we are still living in the Roman culture. Look at our letters, Yep Latin. English? Heck it's all Latin roots, Latin modified. Laws? Yep Roman Senate. Numbers? We borrowed those from the Arabs!

Ok, thats enough John! Hmmmm.. Where was I?

Boagie said...
A satified mind,that is a little obsure my friend,are you saying mind and god same thing?
----------------

I said Mind not mind. Mind is the superset where the Nth mind is an object within it. In actuality our so called mind is the reaction of Mind flow through the resistance of the body. Yep we are not even "we".

Let's face it Bogie we change our god as we go along. So since we need something we feel is superior to us then we give it that name.

Bogie, when I find something beyond The Nothing, Unlimited, and Limitless Light; Then I'll call THAT God.

Nice chatting with you, I like your humor.

The Hermit

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean, Smile

Welcome to the conversation,you always make things more interesting.

"One of the main features of religion, it seems, is its transcendent aspect. By 'transcendence' I am referring to that aspect in religion which goes beyond the temporal or temporary identity of the nation, the race, or the individual. That is to say the identity of people is finite in time whereas the transcendent religion is said to extend beyond the temporary and beyond the merely earthly,historical existence of these identities."

One does not have to swear allegiance to any particular faith to know identity is illusion.The spectulation about the transcendent is uplifting perhaps,but ground in the real world in a strictly negative way,as you yourself have pointed out.All is temporal,which is the source of all sorrow.So we imagine some afterlife where there is no temporality no sorrow.It is a strange quest for immortality,but ask yourself,if you know your identity is illusion,what is it you wish so desparately to survive.

"The transcendence of religion is that aspect which lives beyond the life identity of people and to which the people give of themselves. In that sense I would say that the person's religious identity is akin to a form of idealism and also contains all of the spiritual fervor and spiritual effort that is usually given to idealistic enterprises. What the people give to religion is taken to be that which they give to what they consider the very highest and the very greatest aspect of reality and nature itself."

As our friend Nietzshe pointed out Christianity is a form of nihilism,in that it devalues the real world for one of the imagination.I would not deny religion gives comfort to those who believe it,perhaps it is the necessary lie,the bigger the lie the more likely people will be to believe it.As to claims and promises,I say they are claims and promises you cannot take to the bank.

"Christianity in this sense is considered to be universal whereas the identity of a nation or a race or an individual is existentially grounded in time and place and lives only for a brief moment. Religious faith is faith in that highest level of the universe and the world, faith which negates the 'lower' contests of worldly power that obtains between races, nations, and individuals."

Christianity is temporal as well,it is an idea, and as such part of the human psyche,which we all know to be temporal.We are stuck, with terms that corrupt the dialogue.There is no such thing [concrete] as time,we live in eturnity and die in eturnity, and if you do not get it NOW,you never will.Framed in such a way,how would this restructure this dilogue?

"The worldly power struggles that occur between the nations, races and persons are struggles of the survival of their identities. In these worldly non-religious struggles the peoples sacrifice their lives in the violent struggle over the future of their identities. These worldly minded ones are forced to either kill or be killled in order to obtain a future in which their language, their culture, their race and their people will be victorious. They are forced to kill or be killed to maintain their historical identities."

"Life is trouble,only death is no trouble."

"The historical identity and mortality of the Christian, on the other hand, is not bound to violence and power struggles against races and nations. The mortal, worldly identity of the Christian is rather bound to their faith in what they perceive to be the highest aspects of the universe. The survival of the identity of a Christian is dependent upon their faith through which they are to attain immortality in god as opposed to violent worldly struggles for the security of their futures. The Christian turns his back upon worldly power precisely in the hopes of this immortality. Christian people are the ecclesia, those ones who are called out of the nations to follow not historical identity with its need for worldly survival, but rather they are called to folllow the universal message of the Bible. Christians are said to rely upon persuassion over force in order to dissolve the races and nations with their violence and power into the universal message of salvation."

The historical identity of Christianity is soaked in blood, being it was spread by the sword,as directed by the bible.Again human identity is illusion,and if you understand this,what is it that is going to have immortal life above the clouds.Sin and salvation,are debt and credit,a faith fit for shop keepers.

"Science is obviously a worldly enterprise and is therefore historical and temporary. The achievements of science as important as they are, will not last very long because all worldly things are temporary. Nations will die, cultures and languages will die and identities will eventually die and so too the achievements of science will someday fade away forever. Even the planet earth itself and the Sun will both eventually cease to exist. Religion is different in that it doesn't deal in temporary matters. Religion claims to deal in the highest matters which are said to be eternal (similiar to Plato's concept of immutable Forms or Ideas which are claimed to be the eternal sources of nature and the universe). Religion recognizes the finitude of all human endeavors and also calls evil the power that is required to maintain such endeavours, such as the endeavour to maintain a mortal existence in a world of competitive struggles."

God and religion are themselves products of humanity,they are ideas and concepts which are somewhat inadequate to carry us past the threshold of that dark door,but some how we do manage,and die on a regular bases.One will never be a nihilist if on does not have the courage to look,and one will never become a Christian until he reaches that critical intensity of fear.

"Science is not the same as nature itself. Science is an historical project of mortal and finite people. Science is the working of nature in order to enhance the mortal and temporary life of humans. Science cannot magnify the identity of people beyond the brief moment of their lives. The philosophical question seems to be this: is there an eternal source of nature which is akin to the essence of mankind? If the answer is yes, then the importance of the essence of mankind or the soul, is greater than science because science is temporary. I would like to point out that Plato thought the soul more important than the finitude of the world (which he called 'the world of change' i.e. temporal existnece)."

"Science is not the same as nature" That is correct, but it has never pretended to be nature,science is the interpretation of nature.Science can give people longer life,even inform them as to their own nature.Religion can only claim to give you immortal life,immortal life for the illusion of a identity we spoke of earlier,and soul what is that?Voltaire once said,if you wish to debate with me define your terms.The days are past I hope,when people will allow themselves to be humbled in the face ignorance,of sacred unfounded beliefs.If someone should tell you,you must respect the beliefs of others,he is probably protecting some little insanity of his own.Tell him love is given freely,respect is earned.

0 Replies

@TheHermit,

The Hermit, Smile

"Don't be so hard on religion my friend, science has its faults too. Everything that science rejects they call mythology! Look at Troy for example and look at how they talk about Zecharia Sitchin. Look at the rejection of the water erosion of the Sphinx. Look at the idiocy in the medical field. The medicine they give is causes more problems than the sickness itself. "

If you think about religion and science in their common meanings we often define a thing buy its function.These things, religion and science,are their functions.Science generally is asked in short order to demonstrate any new found function/s. In other words it is either tried and true or it will cease to be,at least that aspect which is being examined.Religion never has to prove itself,indeed it would be impossiable for it to do so.So,what is religion if it is not its function,they say form follows function,so we look at the form of the church of Christianity what can you conclude?

I see your defination of god is not the same as that god of the middle east.I too have an inclination to believe there must be some source, but then I wonder if we are not submerge within it. "The kingdom of the father is spread upon the earth,and men do not see it.Adopting a formal religion is like closeing the door on wonder.It is unfortunate how much born again Christians must ignore in order to stay on that straight and narrow path--it is I believe,a self imposed poverty of the mind.

Thanks for the compliment about my humor.

0 Replies

@boagie,

Pythagorean says..
--------------------------
The transcendence of religion is that aspect which lives beyond the life identity of people and to which the people give of themselves. In that sense I would say that the person's religious identity is akin to a form of idealism and also contains all of the spiritual fervor and spiritual effort that is usually given to idealistic enterprises. What the people give to religion is taken to be that which they give to what they consider the very highest and the very greatest aspect of reality and nature itself.

Christianity in this sense is considered to be universal whereas the identity of a nation or a race or an individual is existentially grounded in time and place and lives only for a brief moment. Religious faith is faith in that highest level of the universe and the world, faith which negates the 'lower' contests of worldly power that obtains between races, nations, and individuals.

The worldly power struggles that occur between the nations, races and persons are struggles of the survival of their identities. In these worldly non-religious struggles the peoples sacrifice their lives in the violent struggle over the future of their identities. These worldly minded ones are forced to either kill or be killled in order to obtain a future in which their language, their culture, their race and their people will be victorious. They are forced to kill or be killed to maintain their historical identities.

I agree and disagree with you Pythagorean..

A person always tries to reach an ideal that he has set for himself but fails many times to achieve it because of his weaknesses. But he will always try to better himself/herself to come close to his ideal.

A religion is the same, it sets an ideal for its followers to achieve but the group always has failed to live up to the ideal. Of course the ideal will persevere the passing of time.

A nation as well as Science works in the same way. A nation has an ideal "Democracy" for example and its timeless words Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality!
Science is always in the pursuit of Understanding. "To push the Frontiers of knowledge." Science with String Theory, "The Theory of Everything", has come to a closer understanding of God.

The Ideals will always be timeless. The groups will fail until they reach the level of unity with God.

In reality my fellow members of creation, everything is immortal! We have evolved through many incarnations and many places in the universe. Everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen is recorded in the Mind of God. Thus all actions are immortal! For we exist because God is "thinking" us. Remember what is said by mystics (and the Bible), "God creates the universe because he remembers."

The Hermit

1 Reply

@TheHermit,

The Hermit, Smile

I know this post is directed at pythagorean,none the less,a few words.

"In reality my fellow members of creation, everything is immortal! We have evolved through many incarnations and many places in the universe. Everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen is recorded in the Mind of God. Thus all actions are immortal! For we exist because God is "thinking" us. Remember what is said by mystics (and the Bible), "God creates the universe because he remembers."

Is there anything in this paragraphy that is grounded in the real world."Everything is immortal',how so? "We have evolved through many incarnations,explain in detail."These incarnations occured in many parts of universe," how do you know this."Everthing that has ever happened,is happening,and will happen,is recorded in the mind of god,"really do explain,it does not sound from your discription that any recording would be necessary."God is thinking us," so we are then thoughts?To have the ability to remember infers the ability to forget,and if god did not have the ability to forget, he would not be omipotent.I am familar with some mystic understandings but even these delightful speculations must be grounded in the real world,if one is to respect them.I am not saying you cannot supply a grounding for these statements,I am saying,that you have not to this point. :eek:

2 Replies

@boagie,

Boagie,

Thanks as always for your generosity.

I would like to suggest that we should think more thoroughly regarding the ongoing, and seemingly urgent, modernist program which seeks to replace Christianity with a sheer worldly mindset. Since this transition is a recent or current phenomenon I think that we may benefit from such a thorough analysis; in other words we should know exactly what we are doing in this transition.

There may be facets of this anti-Christian, pro-worldly change that are dark, there may be facets of it which are self-destructive and perhaps will even lead to a failure of the entire project. I mean that Christianity may even end up being totally victorious in the future if we do not take full account of all of the repurcussions involved in its rejection.

My concern is that the rejection of Christian moral standards may lead to a society and a culture that is violently self-destructive with its obsession with anything-goes sexual perversion and also it seems obvious that the current fashion of tattos and body piercing is a reversion to a pre-Christian tribal identity similiar to the pathetic tribes of Africa where illiteracy HIV-aids, and poverty and profound political inadequacies and harsh violence are wide-spread. It may be worth-while to also note that across the African continent Christianity is spreading and slowly taking over; Africa posesses the fastest growing Christian population in the world (so I have recently read...but forget where exactly).

My point being that a reversion to tribal mysticism seems to be an inevitable result of the rejection of Christianity as can be seen in the new age movements. And also a lack of moral standards may lead to an eventual resurgence and ultimate re-Christianization of society, at least in order to wage effective violence upon the societies obvious enemies (moral standards are necessary in war-waging activities, I think).

Also I would suggest that the notion that identity is an illusion is not grounded in common sense; that identity is an illusion would seem to defy even the same common sense that the scientific method is based upon; the assertion that identity is an illusion would seem to me to imply that common sense science and scientific evidence could also be an illusion. My point is that the assertion that identity is an illusion is a kind of post-Christian mysticism.

Human personal identity is common-sensical in that there is, for example, a difference between a personality who is a murderer and a thief and a personality who is a genuinely moral person. And the rejection of identity is also the rejection of criminal personalities which is based upon the observable and repeated patterns of personal behaviour. In fact, if human identity is to be considered as an illusion then how could anyone tell the difference between any human individuals or any cultures at all? My opinion is that the notion that identity is illusion is based upon a distinct (Eastern) spiritual exercise which attempts to negate identity in the hopes of attaining a higher form of existence; in such an exercise we are once again faced with a form of religion it seems, with all of the mysticism that achieving higher mental states would imply--

Mysticism, violence and the mad grab for raw political power are the types of things that one should consider when attempting to replace the current Judeo-Christian value structure with a completely worldly type of belief system. A replacement of Christianity may lead to a comolete collapse of society. Also, as stated upove, it seems that we may always are faced with some forms of mysticism and religion even in the case of the earthly and the worldly value-strucrure.

Anyway, I hope that my thoughts make some sense. Your thoughts and feedback are greatly appreciated, as always.

--Pythagorean

1 Reply

@boagie,

Boagie

Do you have 30 years free that I can explain all this? Surely you have read Walter Russell and are aquainted with his experiences.

I relate my experiences to you but if you had not had them then you would of course ask how. So at this time the information is "informational" to you.

I would have to see what experiences you have had that I may understand where to begin and elucidate. Have you had any deja vu moments? Have you heard voices that inform or direct you? Have you at any time know something had happened without having been there? Have you ever felt that someone close to you had died or had an accident? Have you at any time known who was at the door before they rang the bell? Have you ever woken up and realized an answer to a question/problem you had tried to figure out? etc., etc. etc.

Do you realize that it was a pattern in your subconscious that made you send your last message? Do you realize that most of your reactions are automatic and come from subconscious patters without your self conscious "thinking" it, you are all of a sudden reacting in anger and intolerance toward others. Do you believe in the devil? If you smoke have you noticed how you start smoking without your self "thinking" it before? If this is so, who is it that you think you are? Who is it that started smoking?

Have you ever noticed that you seem to have bad luck in the two months before you birthdate. Surely your emotions have reacted to the moon can you tell me why or why not?

Do you beleive Walter Russell when he said he knew who and where his future wife was located?

I have a similar experience with my wife where she "saw" me two years before we met. We met at a Rosicrucian Convention at the last hour of the last day. A convention where we both were not going to attend but circumstances changed all that!

I dreamed about my future and spoke to my subconscious through my dreams and fixed personality problems this way since I was four years old.
Have I spoken to Christ? Perhaps.... But no I do not walk on water!

"I am the Hermit. The Lantern Lights the way to those who seek and whose light is seen only by those whose light is lit." This is my motto.

I would never tell you something that I had not experienced myself. I don't ask you for money or gold and certainly I use no one for my benefit. Accept or reject is your decision! Mine is to inform.

The Hermit
FRC John Alvarado, Master Mason, Rose+Croix SI

1 Reply

@TheHermit,

Hush those thoughts of anger...

The Hermit

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean,

"I would like to suggest that we should think more thoroughly regarding the ongoing, and seemingly urgent, modernist program which seeks to replace Christianity with a sheer worldly mindset. Since this transition is a recent or current phenomenon I think that we may benefit from such a thorough analysis; in other words we should know exactly what we are doing in this transition."

I realize it is tempting to inject fantasy and wishful thinking into the mix but all I would really like is,for all to keep at least one foot within the realm of reality,otherwise dilogue soon becomes absurd.

"There may be facets of this anti-Christian, pro-worldly change that are dark, there may be facets of it which are self-destructive and perhaps will even lead to a failure of the entire project. I mean that Christianity may even end up being totally victorious in the future if we do not take full account of all of the repurcussions involved in its rejection.

So,you infer here yourself, proworldly is anti-christian,Nietzsche was right Christianity is a form of nihilism.I understand Pythagorean you are fearful for the future,indeed it does not look good,these debates are nothing more than distractions.However Christianity has had its day,it has been around for two thousand years of blood soaked history,what do you think it is going to do now?

"My concern is that the rejection of Christian moral standards may lead to a society and a culture that is violently self-destructive with its obsession with anything-goes sexual perversion and also it seems obvious that the current fashion of tattos and body piercing is a reversion to a pre-Christian tribal identity similiar to the pathetic tribes of Africa where illiteracy HIV-aids, and poverty and profound political inadequacies and harsh violence are wide-spread. It may be worth-while to also note that across the African continent Christianity is spreading and slowly taking over; Africa posesses the fastest growing Christian population in the world (so I have recently read...but forget where exactly)."

This is a concern that crosses many minds and not necessarily Christian minds.Christians tend to believe that Christ,god the bible, is the source of all human morality, this is false,a lie,a pretence.Humanity is the source of its own compassion and compassion is the foundation of all morality.

"My point being that a reversion to tribal mysticism seems to be an inevitable result of the rejection of Christianity as can be seen in the new age movements. And also a lack of moral standards may lead to an eventual resurgence and ultimate re-Christianization of society, at least in order to wage effective violence upon the societies obvious enemies (moral standards are necessary in war-waging activities, I think)."

There is a reduction of all tribes and tribal beliefs as the tribes become larger and larger.In a tribe all love and compassion is reserved for the inner cirlce,all hostility is directed outward.Tribalism today is suicide.Why do Jews attract the hostility of so much of the worlds population, because they are tribal.Adopting Christianity out of fear is not new,though it may occur on a far larger scale than in the past,for today there is much to fear.

"Also I would suggest that the notion that identity is an illusion is not grounded in common sense; that identity is an illusion would seem to defy even the same common sense that the scientific method is based upon; the assertion that identity is an illusion would seem to me to imply that common sense science and scientific evidence could also be an illusion. My point is that the assertion that identity is an illusion is a kind of post-Christian mysticism."

You say the illusion of identity is not grounded in common sense,if by common sense you mean,a very limited ablity to think,I would agree.When Jesus said,love thy neighbour as thyself,do you think his concern was social harmony,social cohesion,or did he mean love thy neighbour as thyself, because you are that other.Where on earth do you think the inclination of compassion comes from?If this indeed was not a reality there would be no such thing as compassion.

"Human personal identity is common-sensical in that there is, for example, a difference between a personality who is a murderer and a thief and a personality who is a genuinely moral person. And the rejection of identity is also the rejection of criminal personalities which is based upon the observable and repeated patterns of personal behaviour. In fact, if human identity is to be considered as an illusion then how could anyone tell the difference between any human individuals or any cultures at all? My opinion is that the notion that identity is illusion is based upon a distinct (Eastern) spiritual exercise which attempts to negate identity in the hopes of attaining a higher form of existence; in such an exercise we are once again faced with a form of religion it seems, with all of the mysticism that achieving higher mental states would imply."

Pythagorean,if you really need to believe that what is apparent through commons sense, is reality-----go for it,just do not aspect me to by into it.

Mysticism, violence and the mad grab for raw political power are the types of things that one should consider when attempting to replace the current Judeo-Christian value strucure with a completely worldly type of belief system. A replacement of Christianity may lead to a comlete collapse of society. Also, as stated upobe, it seems that we may always are faced with some forms of mysticism and religion even in the case of the earthly and the worldly value-strucrure.

Since when has Christianiy not been a power grabber,in the darkages they used terror and murder to maintain their authority and if they could would do so in the future.

Mine is a simple request,I do not mind if you do not ground all your statements in the real world,I can ignore many,but some must be ground if we are to continue. Wink

0 Replies

@TheHermit,

Good for you Hermit,Perhaps Pythagorean can ground them for you.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Boagie, you seem to come across as some kind of expert on reasonableness and common sense but I am confused. All I did was to point out the ongoing changes afoot in the world and hint that some of these changes are problematic and try to suggest an analysis of where some of the problems may lie. I don't understand your reply, quite frankly. You have a brooding resentment of Christianity that seems to reject any rational consideration concerning it. I mean no offense but that's the feeling that I get.

Boagie, your definition of common sense seems to refer only to the things that you believe in or assert and whatever I say you simply label as not being part of common sense because you personally don't see it that way and that seems unfair to me. That's my impression of it anyway.

Hermit,

You have outlined some human traits that are very important. I might categorize your (mysticism?) as being closely connected with some deeply human attributes or as part of human intuition. And here is where I disagree with those like Boagie who would say that mankind needs to be strictly rational and scientiifc. I don't believe that the defining characteristics of human beings, such as those that you have pointed out, are amenable to science or scientific thinking per se.

Another example I would add to your list is human eroticism. Human eroticism has nothing to do with pure reason or science but is a very necessary and perhaps even a great part of the human psyche and experience. There are many things human which are not practical in a scientific sort of understanding of things. We humans are full of qualities, and these qualities have nothing to do with reason, they are just qualities that human animals posess and that make us humans. Their value can not be calculated by practical reason alone. Their value, like the value of life itself, is inestimable by nature. It has also been suggested by the ancient Greeks that the Gods themselves also posess such qualities such as: anger, eros, competitiveness, sorrow, fear, and the drive towards enlightenment and self-knowledge. These traits are not rational per se are they? They are the traits that poets sing of, they are the traits which make humans different from the other animals.

By the way, I didn't mean to make you angry in any way Hermit. My post was part of an ongoing dialog with Boagie regarding Christianity, nihilism, and the future of Western Civilization, so perhaps you may have misunderstood some of my meanings.

Any opinion that you may have Hermit, I hope that you will feel freely to express. (I do admit that I am getting a big confused regarding the last few responses, though.)

Sincerely,
Pythagorean

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean,The Hermit, Smile

Pythagorean wrote:

Boagie, you seem to come across as some kind of expert on reasonableness and common sense but I am confused. All I did was to point out the ongoing changes afoot in the world and hint that some of these changes are problematic and try to suggest an analysis of where some of the problems may lie. I don't understand your reply, quite frankly. You have a brooding resentment of Christianity that seems to reject any rational consideration concerning it. I mean no offense but that's the feeling that I get.

Rational consideration of it,meaning Christianity,seems to be offensive.It seems to me we are at opposite ends of a pole.I have also long been aware of your sympathies with Christianity and if you were honest you would admit to being a bit of the crusader.If it is political incorrect to ask for people to back up their statements-----I think we have entered the land of the silly.Actually in reguards that post of yours I responded to,I thought you were flexing your muscles there,I shall go back and read it again.Well maybe just bit.This topic it strikes me,is something you are pretty emotionally invested in,try to be aware of that.

"Boagie, your definition of common sense seems to refer only to the things that you believe in or assert and whatever I say you simply label as not being part of common sense because you personally don't see it that way and that seems unfair to me. That's my impression of it anyway.

We are all our own authority,at least I hope you are your own authority.This I do not see as a negative.I asked of The Hermit that he back up his statements or show what the rational for such statements might look like,he either cannot or wishes to withhold that information.It is not an ureasonable request,faith does not cut it here.

2 Replies

@boagie,

No Boagie, I am not "a bit of a crusader" at all, and I think that deep down inside you really know that that is the truth. It is merely my natural tendency to come to the defense of Western Civilization, to try to preserve what is worth while without throwing it all away or seeing it collapse before my eyes. I am not a Christian, as I keep telling you. Why can't you accept that fact?

I have spent my life reading and falling in love with the history of Western Civilization. And that's also by the way, why I love Nietzsche (who you should really get around to actually reading, if you find the time :eek:). Nietzsche understood Christianity before he critisized it, he started out his education by training to become a priest! and his father was a pastor! I also love the ancient Greeks and I happen to consider myself as an adherent of ancient Greek religion as well as philosophy. I love the history and spirit of the west, that's where I get my intellectual nourishment, that's where I received my education (such that it is). My knowledge tends to be derived directly from the deepest crises and greatest changes that are currently taking place in our culture; and those changes happen to involve (the death of) Christianity. And so I am forced to deal with it!

Your problem Boagie is that you are, as you said, too offended by Christianity to hold a rational conversation regarding it. But you should know that you cannot claim to fully understand the West or history without understanding the huge role that Christianity and even the obvious decay of Christianity is now playing in our culture, and that is so important to understanding the modern world. You are a partisan of the anti-Christian ideology, but if you write about this in the forums I should be allowed to make my own comments as well. You must also back up your statements just as anyone else and not hide behind the all-inclusive mantra that you are in 'common sense land' and everyone who differs with you is an outlander.

Your question to The Hermit seems to me to be reasonable enough but you should also heed my statements above regarding his list of human intuitions that you deem to be unreasonable or unscientific. The things in human nature that The Hermit writes about are realities of human intuition, as I see it. Also, as I said, human eroticism is a central part of human nature, and eroticism cannot be explained or even dealt with at all by your seemingly narrow notions of common sense and science, can it Boagie?? But what would we be without such things? We are not rational creatures, we are human beings with qualities that cannot be captured or fully explained by the sciences. Boagie you must at least admit that this is true, no?

Boagie, I don't mean you any real offense, I think you know. I even take some enjoyment, as well as much instruction, from our disagreement over Christianity. I just think that you should appreciate the great catherdrals of the west along with the super colliders and space observatories. I think they all must be appreciated!

I'm sorry that talk of Christianity bothers you so much but I can't change the history of the world or the challenges of the present times.

--Pythagorean

1 Reply

@boagie,

Pythagorean,

No not mad at anybody. In fact I admire the love that you show for religion so much that I was going to say "who am I to change your mind!" Why meddle with beauty in your heart. Follow your bliss and be content.

Boagie

You are in love with rationality (as you define it). Your ardor is as great as Pythagorean's.

Perhaps I have both of your qualities put together but instead of religion I seek God where Buddha and Jesus seem to have found him. Being a Mystic means that I have great love of God, so much that I spend most of my time seeking Him. I am filled with desire to see Him, to contact Him. At the same time I am a Scientist (Computer Science from Math Dept.) and must use logic and rationalization in my observations. But my inquiries have gone into the invisible. Maybe it started when I worked with imaginary numbers (square root of -1) in Einstein's equation where the answer went into negative infinity. So the range was from negative infinity to positive infinity, a sine wave perhaps. Energy < - > Mass concentrate energy to transform it into mass, it can go either way. This is in fact Russell's centrifugal and centripetal forces.

In my Mystical studies (I also have a Psychology degree) I found similar workings in how the self conscious and subconscious work. You may say that the Self Conscious is the "rational" one. He works with inductive and deductive logic but he also has vision (sight) and likes to direct. He lives in time, past - present- future. He needs to do this in order that he may "evolve". I say he because he is the male polarity. The subconscious on the other side may be called the invisible. She is the female polarity. She works only with inductive logic. They are born as children. The Self conscious "grows up" by using his tools in observing the world. He must make good observations of his environment. The subconscious only grows up with knowledge of the "invisible". She depends on the Self conscious to guide her in this quest. The Self conscious begins to see that his senses are fooling him into believing that what he sees is "reality". This is when he starts the quest into the invisible. Where is this invisible thing that moves the universe or is it going haphazardly along? So the Self begins to study Buddha, Jesus, and others who have traveled this road before and begins to seek the way to get there. This takes him beyond the frontiers of knowledge where the road is dark but he finds that there are "invisible" guides who point him in the right direction. During this quest subconscious grows into adulthood and they are now both matured. This is when the wedding takes place and Cosmic Consciousness occurs, Russell described this bodily change in his lessons. Unfortunately he does not say what steps you must take to begin this transformation. You must find this for yourself.

There is much more to this but this is already too long. I have gone on this journey and so I tell you about it. I have not yet reached the goal but am happy to tell you the way. It is up to everybody to make their own decision. Joseph Campbell found this in Mythology and wrote a book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces".

So you see Pythagorean, I see this coming in the future where we will all love one another and live in harmony. The old ways were there to carry us so far but new ways will be found. We will finally realize as Joseph Campbell said " And when we slay another, we have only slain ourselves."

It is because of this Love for others that I endure ridicule as a fool always hoping that the seed will fall in good ground. I don't have faith Boagie I have experience.

Your Brother
The Hermit

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

No Boagie, I am not "a bit of a crusader" at all, and I think that deep down inside you really know that that is the truth. It is merely my natural tendency to come to the defense of Western Civilization, to try to preserve what is worth while without throwing it all away or seeing it collapse before my eyes. I am not a Christian, as I keep telling you. Why can't you accept that fact? "

Actually I am well aware you are not a Christian,but I am aware also that you are a champion for its cause, it is perhaps of some necessity on your part I do not know.Western Civilization is a glorious subject,but there always comes time to build a new.With the natural world in decline this is extreme optimism.

"I have spent my life reading and falling in love with the history of Western Civilization. And that's also by the way, why I love Nietzsche (who you should really get around to actually reading, if you find the time :eek:). Nietzsche understood Christianity before he critisized it, he started out his education by training to become a priest! and his father was a pastor! I also love the ancient Greeks and I happen to consider myself as an adherent of ancient Greek religion as well as philosophy. I love the history and spirit of the west, that's where I get my intellectual nourishment, that's where I received my education (such that it is). My knowledge tends to be derived directly from the deepest crises and greatest changes that are currently taking place in our culture; and those changes happen to involve (the death of) Christianity. And so I am forced to deal with it!"

You have chosen this hill on which to do die,there are many many hills on which it would be honourable to die upon.Never the less,you have chosen,and Christianty is part of a package deal.As to my Knowledge of Nietzsche,and my statement about what he said,in what way is it in error? He clearly states that Christianity is a form of nihilism.Your own experience of reading the bibles devaluation of the world in favor of a world of the imagination should leave no doubt.

"Your problem Boagie is that you are, as you said, too offended by Christianity to hold a rational conversation regarding it. But you should know that you cannot claim to fully understand the West or history without understanding the huge role that Christianity and even the obvious decay of Christianity is now playing in our culture, and that is so important to understanding the modern world. You are a partisan of the anti-Christian ideology, but if you write about this in the forums I should be allowed to make my own comments as well. You must also back up your statements just as anyone else and not hide behind the all-inclusive mantra that you are in 'common sense land' and everyone who differs with you is an outlander."

My problem is perhaps trying to rationally discuss the irrational in the presence of its supporters.I like you in all probablity are productions of western civilization.So,as such if we are the cause of change,it is within one tradition.

"Your question to The Hermit seems to me to be reasonable enough but you should also heed my statements above regarding his list of human intuitions that you deem to be unreasonable or unscientific. The things in human nature that The Hermit writes about are realities of human intuition, as I see it. Also, as I said, human eroticism is a central part of human nature, and eroticism cannot be explained or even dealt with at all by your seemingly narrow notions of common sense and science, can it Boagie?? But what would we be without such things? We are not rational creatures, we are human beings with qualities that cannot be captured or fully explained by the sciences. Boagie you must at least admit that this is true, no?"

We disgust the use of poetry in philosophy at an earlier date,these finer sensiabilties are not appropriate to philosphy.Free speculation is fine, intution is a wonderfully creative source,but unless you are willing to attempt to communicate how you arrived at those conclusions,why bother making a statement,an authoritative statement,and expect it to be accepted,personally I have no use for faith.

"Boagie, I don't mean you any real offense, I think you know. I even take some enjoyment, as well as much instruction, from our disagreement over Christianity. I just think that you should appreciate the great catherdrals of the west along with the super colliders and space observatories. I think they all must be appreciated! "

The history of western culture is indeed rich,in fact Joseph Campbell once said dispite common knowledge, it is the oldest culture in the world.

"I'm sorry that talk of Christianity bothers you so much but I can't change the history of the world or the challenges of the present times."

Christianity does bother me,but only when believers insist on laying alot of irrational beliefs on me.For my part, should I apologize for my rational statements,which if ask would be most please to substantiate,or give it my best effort to substantiate,instead of accusing a fellow associate of bad intent.

Sorry,The Hermit posted just before myself.In all probablities if I have read it it would have change the emotional tone of this post one way or another.All the best gentleman!

1 Reply

@boagie,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boagie

As to my Knowledge of Nietzsche,and my statement about what he said,in what way is it in error? He clearly states that Christianity is a form of nihilism.Your own experience of reading the bibles devaluation of the world in favor of a world of the imagination should leave no doubt.

I agree with your characterization of what Nietzsche said. He said it was tantamount to nihilism. Nietzsche like you, believed in this world, but very much un-like you he did not believe in the intellectual credibility of science and he most certainly was not an exponent of rationalism. Of that you can be sure. Nietzsche took his bearings from the ancient Greeks who believed in irrational forces. Nietzsche also believed in human slavery and the subjection of the weak to the powerful. The reason Nietzsche believed in violence and slavery and war is because he knew full well the implications of his anti-Christian proposals. And this was the point I was trying to raise with you earlier. We need to be mindful of what we are doing when we replace the moral standards with purely natural standards. Because as Nietzsche knew and taught, the natural standards are very, very harsh.

The harshness of Nietzsche's conception of nature is best revealed in the concept of Tragedy. The notion of Tragedy in the Greek naturalistic conception is derived from the blindness that fate or natural necessity causes to humanity when humans live completely within the naturalistic world. Tragedy marks the weakness and ultimate death of human identity when it is completely exposed to nature. Tragedy is a form of human sacrifice, a sacrifice that becomes compulsory in the necessary hopes that the survival of the identity (or the heart) of the society will go on existing within nature when nature is devoid of the 'magic' of Christian salvation. It was that great rationalist Karl Marx who repudiated the entire concept of Tragedy. "Necessity," he said, "is blind only to the extent it is not understood." But Tragedy arises out of precisely the opposite assertion: necessity is blind and man's encounter with it shall rob him of his eyes, whether it be in Thebes or in Gaza. Science or reason is powerless in the face of raw nature. Nature is not rational, and man who is born of nature, if given back his natural place should not be expected to act rationally but rather he will act brutally because nature commands his survival. The Tragic state of affairs is the true condition of man in nature. Nietzsche, of course, was well aware of Tragedy and he sought to revive it by his work as revealed in his books.

Boagie wrote:

I like you in all probablity are productions of western civilization.So,as such if we are the cause of change,it is within one tradition.

You have here made a very profound observation. We are of the same general tradition but the tradition obviously contains some internal contradictions. Having said that I actually believe that the naturalistic type of standards that you espouse will win out in the end, they are winning right now in our culture and they will continue to be victorious. I would only like to discuss these profound ongoing changes. I think even slavery will come back because I think that as Aristotle has stated and Nietzsche has implied, human slavery is indeed natural among heathen cultures.

Boagie wrote:

We disgust the use of poetry in philosophy at an earlier date,these finer sensiabilties are not appropriate to philosphy.Free speculation is fine, intution is a wonderfully creative source,but unless you are willing to attempt to communicate how you arrived at those conclusions,why bother making a statement,an authoritative statement,and expect it to be accepted,personally I have no use for faith.

You are misunderstanding me. I am not advocating the use of poetry in philosophy. I am telling you that the revaluation of values and the return to naturalistic standards will necessitate many forms of irrationalism (inlcuding especially violent competition for power). I actually believe that science will probably die after the death of Christianity, science is probably dependent upon Christian moral standards. I think that without Christianity science would never have arisen in the first place. If you look at the natural cultures of the earth which pre-dated Christianity they never succeeded in attaining the advancement of progressive science. But that is open to debate I know.

I might add that there are many scientists practising today who believe in the Christian God. And, as is a well known fact, Albert Einstein himself was a believer in God. I myself do not advocate the Christian God, I think of myself as an advocate of knowledge only.

Boagie wrote:

For my part, should I apologize for my rational statements,which if ask would be most please to substantiate,or give it my best effort to substantiate,instead of accusing a fellow associate of bad intent.

Boagie I did not mean to accuse you of 'bad intent' at all. There's nothing wrong with having a disagreement with your fellow associate, in fact such disagreements should be expected in the real world. I learned from Nietzsche too that from disagreement can grow some benefits. I hope that you are not too sore at me Boagie, I hope we can disagree and grow together too.

--Pythagorean

2 Replies

@Pythagorean,

The Hermit wrote:

I admire the love that you show for religion so much that I was going to say "who am I to change your mind!" Why meddle with beauty in your heart. Follow your bliss and be content.

I think you are misinformed.

I am not a Christian. I merely seek to calculate the consequences of the weakening of Christianity within my own culture, within the West.

I do this calculation because I believe it is the most rational thing to do, given the circumstances...-also the most wise and the most intelligent thing to do -

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

I agree with your characterization of what Nietzsche said. He said it was tantamount to nihilism. Nietzsche like you, believed in this world, but very much un

1 Reply

Agnostiscism and atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know