A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
Certainly values can be transmitted from Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, or even from the colorful pages of a Captain America Comic. We need not portray these events as true for their significance to be valid, nor is the act of storytelling inherently religious.

But we are getting close to a fundamental truth here. I think a great deal of the entertainment industry is actually a substitute religion.

If we soon upon the event of a fundamental truth, and that truth is there is a connection between religion and entertainment, perhaps you've got it backwards: Religion is the substitute entertainment. Religion applies a narrative to our lives after all.

jeeprs wrote:

Why do we treat stars as demigods? IN a materialist society, fame, wealth and pleasure are the highest goods. The 'movie stars' have them in spades.

I'd say we like stars for their talents and often their sexual appeal. Demigods, not. We love to watch them gain weight and self destruct. Certainly the cover of any celebrity magazine will demonstrate we treat them more like pets or race ponies. On the other side, individuals like the Pope or the Dalai Lama are given divine qualities like infallibility and other mystic idiosyncrasies.

jeeprs wrote:

Question: do you think that religious myth is a metaphor for something?

I'd say that religious myth is a failed attempt to understand nature. This is why so many ancient cultures worshiped the sun, moon, and stars. This is why birth is mystified.

Is is a metaphor? I can't say. It's never been presented uniformly on this matter. Some religions insist that they are literal accounts of history.

jeeprs wrote:

Do you think it speaks to the human condition, or do you see it simply as a species of delusion?

I think that delusion says much about the human condition, and be that delusion a religious one or otherwise, usually the origin resides in the minimalization of anxiety and optimization of comfort.

Humans rarely choose to believe in the supernatural things that offer us nothing. However, we so eagerly choose to believe in the supernatural things that reward us everything and install a sense of entitlement.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Religion is the substitute entertainment. Religion applies a narrative to our lives after all

Quote:

I think that delusion says much about the human condition, and be that delusion a religious one or otherwise, usually the origin resides in the minimalization of anxiety and optimization of comfort.

Humans rarely choose to believe in the supernatural things that offer us nothing. However, we so eagerly choose to believe in the supernatural things that reward us everything and install a sense of entitlement.

I think you have a very poor understanding of the way religious culture actually works. Of course some present spirituality as a means to riches and self-fulfilment, as for example the prosperity gospel or The Secret. But the enduring traditions teach a discipline that requires sacrifice, eschews comfort, and demands self-abnegation. If you understand it properly, you will know that there is nothing in it for the ego. This is more or less the opposite of liberalism, where the ego is the fulcrum around which everything turns.

Anyway, never mind. We each make our choices. Modernity and naturalism is a religious view of life in itself, but a deficient one in my view, so I guess we will just agree to differ on that.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
Religion is the substitute entertainment. Religion applies a narrative to our lives after all

Quote:
I think that delusion says much about the human condition, and be that delusion a religious one or otherwise, usually the origin resides in the minimalization of anxiety and optimization of comfort.

Humans rarely choose to believe in the supernatural things that offer us nothing. However, we so eagerly choose to believe in the supernatural things that reward us everything and install a sense of entitlement.

I think you have a very poor understanding of the way religious culture actually works.

The way religious culture actually works is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

By virtue of being alive and interacting with people, I interact with religious culture on a daily basis. The idea that I have any less of an understanding of what the (definitive) nature of religious culture is huff and puff. Additionally, the notion that I don't under it, is to advance that it is homogeneous. Certainly you don't believe this, and being that I don't believe that you do, how can you purport to know enough about the numerous religious cultures to claim that I have a poor understanding?

jeeprs wrote:

Of course some present spirituality as a means to riches and self-fulfilment, as for example the prosperity gospel or The Secret. But the enduring traditions teach a discipline that requires sacrifice, eschews comfort, and demands self-abnegation.

So in a greater understanding up religious culture, I should discard those who "present spirituality as a means to riches and self-fulfilment?" Who is left?

But seriously, you make this sound like it's such a minority amongst religious doctrines. I could not disagree more.

jeeprs wrote:

If you understand it properly, you will know that there is nothing in it for the ego. This is more or less the opposite of liberalism, where the ego is the fulcrum around which everything turns.

I'd say that religion is the ego's new clothes.

when did we start talking about liberalism?...

jeeprs wrote:

Anyway, never mind. We each make our choices. Modernity and naturalism is a religious view of life in itself, but a deficient one in my view, so I guess we will just agree to differ on that.

Deficient at what?

I'll say this, atheism is not a very adequate choice to make if your desire is to believe in any gods. I'll guess in that way, atheism can't offer what you want. In all other cases, it seems to work just fine.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

So in a greater understanding up religious culture, I should discard those who "present spirituality as a means to riches and self-fulfilment?" Who is left?

[jeeprs shakes head in disbelief]

Quote:

I'll say this, atheism is not a very adequate choice to make if your desire is to believe in any gods. I'll guess in that way, atheism can't offer what you want. In all other cases, it seems to work just fine.

That is correct in some way, although I have no desire to 'believe in Gods'. I have a kind of instinctive belief, but I don't think it is in what you would consider 'A God'. It is not nearly so stereotyped as that. I want to feel part of the universe, part of something much greater than human society and social norms. It seems to me that normality or modernity or whatever it is, only allows you to understand yourself in terms of your social role, as far as your role in nature is concerned, it is severly circumscribed by Darwinism, which says nature is basically dumb, and life basically accidental (as distinct from intentional).

So you're definitely right in saying atheism doesn't offer that. Atheism, the way that most people believe it, is wholly negative, simply the negation of what it sees as religion. If you had a positive philosophy, I would be all ears, but I don't see any sign of one. Buddhism, which I practise, is non-theistic. It doesn't look for God for salvation, or believe in a personal god or creator god. But I think most atheism says, whatever is religious, I reject it. This kind of reflexive atheism is, I think, entirely worthless. Well it is to me. It doesn't answer any questions I have.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
So in a greater understanding up religious culture, I should discard those who "present spirituality as a means to riches and self-fulfilment?" Who is left?

[jeeprs shakes head in disbelief]

As I stated before, we do not choose to engage supernatural beliefs that offer us nothing. Instead we choose the ones that offer everything. The ideas of heaven and enlightenment are means of self-fulfillment.

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
I'll say this, atheism is not a very adequate choice to make if your desire is to believe in any gods. I'll guess in that way, atheism can't offer what you want. In all other cases, it seems to work just fine.

That is correct in some way, although I have no desire to 'believe in Gods'.

I'm reminded of the religious assault against the idea of "zero" and what Hitchen's mused as the "potential behind such a number." What potential indeed.

jeeprs wrote:

I have a kind of instinctive belief, but I don't think it is in what you would consider 'A God'. It is not nearly so stereotyped as that.

You have instincts? We are both humans, so if you have some instinct, I have it. You're appealing to some sort of universal truth about the existence of gods. So, I'm skeptical to believe that your instincts are in any way extra-sensory to my own.

jeeprs wrote:

I want to feel part of the universe, part of something much greater than human society and social norms.

Well, you ARE a part of the universe. There's not a choice involved.

If you wish to feel more connected to it, how is any supernatural belief necessary in doing so?

jeeprs wrote:

It seems to me that normality or modernity or whatever it is, only allows you to understand yourself in terms of your social role, as far as your role in nature is concerned, it is severly circumscribed by Darwinism, which says nature is basically dumb, and life basically accidental (as distinct from intentional).

Nature is not dumb. I quoted Buckminster Fuller in my OP: "Nature requires no calculation to act with the greatest economy."

Life is not accidental, it is inevitable. Inevitability does not require either accident or intent.

jeeprs wrote:

So you're definitely right in saying atheism doesn't offer that. Atheism, the way that most people believe it, is wholly negative, simply the negation of what it sees as religion.

People don't believe in Atheism. Atheism is a state.

jeeprs wrote:

If you had a positive philosophy, I would be all ears, but I don't see any sign of one.

I DO have a positive philosophy. I positively believe in a natural universe. This is why I object to demands that I prove negatives. I don't need to disprove any gods.

What is negative about my atheism?

It seems very clear that the atheism you wish for me to have and the one I have are not the same.

jeeprs wrote:

Buddhism, which I practise, is non-theistic. It doesn't look for God for salvation, or believe in a personal god or creator god.

It's still a belief in many supernatural myths and ideas. Reincarnation comes to mind.

jeeprs wrote:

But I think most atheism says, whatever is religious, I reject it. This kind of reflexive atheism is, I think, entirely worthless. Well it is to me. It doesn't answer any questions I have.

How about this, I can accept and reject things. This means that if they can be proven, I'll accept them. Otherwise, next in line please.

I'm fond of a certain Tim Minchin joke...

Q: Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works?
A: Medicine.

There is no "religious truth," there is only truth. Certainly many events in the bible, quran, torah, etc actually happened, but not all. Similarly, in the pages of a Captain America comic, you'll find accounts of real WW2 battles.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

Anyway, never mind. We each make our choices. Modernity and naturalism is a religious view of life in itself, but a deficient one in my view, so I guess we will just agree to differ on that.

Deficient at what?

failures art wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

I think it is quite possible for the atheist to lead a happy and fulfilling life, provided he/she is motivated and balanced and so on.

Is this a yes or no? I asked if an atheist can be just as happy as a theist. Saying that an atheist can be happy is not clear enough as to your opinion that an atheist can achieve the same degree of happiness and fulfillment.

I was very serious about these questions BTW.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

As I stated before, we do not choose to engage supernatural beliefs that offer us nothing. Instead we choose the ones that offer everything. The ideas of heaven and enlightenment are means of self-fulfillment.

But it you are serious about a spiritual practise, this is the very first obstacle you have to overcome. When you sign up to learn meditation, the very first thing you have to learn is not to expect anything from it.

Quote:

Life is not accidental, it is inevitable. Inevitability does not require either accident or intent.

I don't think you are the kind of materialist that I take issue with, then. Are you familiar with Chance and Necessity, by Jacques Monod? Or Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Dennett? Now they're materialists. By contrast, there is a theistic evolutionary biologist, called Simon Conway Morris, opposed to ID, whose book is called Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Outside this kind of book, where in Western scientific theory is there any idea of the inevitability of human life? Inevtiability sounds awfully like destiny to me, and destiny sounds like a spiritual idea.

Quote:

It seems very clear that the atheism you wish for me to have and the one I have are not the same.

The atheism I take as normative is Monod, Dennett, Dawkins. It is quite possible that you are not what I consider atheist.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Jeeprs wrote

Quote:

Quote:

As I stated before, we do not choose to engage supernatural beliefs that offer us nothing. Instead we choose the ones that offer everything. The ideas of heaven and enlightenment are means of self-fulfillment.

But it you are serious about a spiritual practise, this is the very first obstacle you have to overcome. When you sign up to learn meditation, the very first thing you have to learn is not to expect anything from it.

...because the "self" dissipates as I understand it ?......and hence the "me" that is looking for "gods" , or "confirmation", or anything else is no longer "present".

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:

As I stated before, we do not choose to engage supernatural beliefs that offer us nothing. Instead we choose the ones that offer everything. The ideas of heaven and enlightenment are means of self-fulfillment.

But it you are serious about a spiritual practise, this is the very first obstacle you have to overcome. When you sign up to learn meditation, the very first thing you have to learn is not to expect anything from it.

Ahhh... I get it. So if meditation doesn't work for a person, it's not that meditation doesn't work, but rather, that they didn't learn that it doesn't do anything.

As it happens to be, I do meditation. I just don't add a mystical nature to it. It is how I choose to relax or clear my mind. Similarly, running works at moving myself faster. Meditation is not inherently a spiritual exercise any more than concentration.

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
Life is not accidental, it is inevitable. Inevitability does not require either accident or intent.

I don't think you are the kind of materialist that I take issue with, then.

I can't tell you how relieved I am to be one of the good ones.

jeeprs wrote:

Are you familiar with Chance and Necessity, by Jacques Monod? Or Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Dennett? Now they're materialists. By contrast, there is a theistic evolutionary biologist, called Simon Conway Morris, opposed to ID, whose book is called Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Outside this kind of book, where in Western scientific theory is there any idea of the inevitability of human life?

Inevitability of life, not just human life.

jeeprs wrote:

Inevtiability sounds awfully like destiny to me, and destiny sounds like a spiritual idea.

Only if you believe human life is entitled or any more significant than other life.

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:

It seems very clear that the atheism you wish for me to have and the one I have are not the same.

The atheism I take as normative is Monod, Dennett, Dawkins. It is quite possible that you are not what I consider atheist.

Or your preconceived notions about what is normative and what atheists believe and value is wrong.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

So if meditation doesn't work for a person, it's not that meditation doesn't work, but rather, that they didn't learn that it doesn't do anything.

No, that's not it. It is a subject that requires learning. It is not a question of anything 'working' and 'not working'. It is a question of the expectation that the practitioner brings to it.

The meditation training that I have learned is Vipassana and Zen. I suppose you could say it is mystical, but at the same time, it has a definite subject matter. Meditation in the Buddhist context can certainly be undertaken within a secular values framework. IN fact there is a current book called Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, by Stephen Bachelor. As it happens, though, I am not an atheist.

My notion of what atheists believe is based on the authors and writers I quoted - Dawkins, Dennett, Monod, to a lesser extent, the French existentialists, and historic materialists such as Thomas Hobbes and the French philosophs. Can you recommend any others?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I recommend that you stop distancing yourself from atheists by reading books. My advice is to talk to and ask questions of atheists. Ask an atheist who has been an atheist for a long time too.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

most of my discussions on online forums are with nontheists or atheists. I am curious about what they think and why. Would you recommend any specific philosophers or schools of thought?

Perhaps I should point out that most regular Christians would regard my views as, if not atheist, at least pantheist and probably heretical, although those distinctions might not mean anything to you.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I'm a fan of Hitchens, but he's not going to approach religion and atheism as a part of a philosophical dialog (At least he hasn't yet in his writing). He addresses the topic from a social standpoint with sober resolve. Religion has consequences, and dancing around the subject for the sake of others comfort serves nobody.

From our interaction thus far, I'm willing to bet his writing style would come off ass brash to you. It can be rather adversarial. However, to use his method to dismiss and discard his content is ad hominem.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Poor old Hitch. Have you heard that he has been diagnosed with oesophegeal cancer? this story only broke today. I do feel sorry for anyone with that condition. And no, I don't like his views, although he is an excellent writer and provocateur.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459427/Hitchens-vs-Hitchens.html

archival article of interest.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Terrible news about the cancer.

What don't you like about his views? Specifically.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I endorse what his brother, Peter Hitchens, says in that link that I pasted in.

I understand the new atheist bandwagon. I know Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and quite a few lesser lights. I think they are all barking up the wrong tree. They are denying something that never did exist. They take all the exemplars of where religion has gone of the rails, and spend, or waste, a lot of time attacking it. I mean, Dawkins thinks that any religious person is like Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Hitchens thinks that any religious person must be delusional, psychopathic, etc etc. But if you stand back a little, it is difficult to square with the empirical fact that the majority of the worlds people and cultures are, in fact, religious. So their hypothesis is that we are all victims of this massive delusion or conspiracy, stretching back centuries, which is threatening to destroy civilization, and from which they, champions of scientific reason and liberal democracy, need to liberate us. That's pretty right, isn't it? (Sam Harris says the same, but thinks Buddhism is OK.)

There's an important essay by Thomas Nagel, who is one of the leading philosophers of the age, thoroughly secular, called Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, in which he says that

Quote:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.

That about sums it up in my view.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I'll ask again.

What don't you like about his views? Specifically.

This is a rather general firing in the dark hoping you hit something. What specific things to you take issue with that Hitchen's has wrote?

I very much disagree with: "Hitchens thinks that any religious person must be delusional, psychopathic, etc etc." To characterize his works with this sentiment does not demonstrate a depth in understanding what his views are.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Well, he called his book 'God is not great: why religion poisons everything'. Fairly unambiguous, I would have thought. I happen not to agree. I don't want to discuss it in much more depth. I mean, if there was a book called 'why you should be cruel to animals' or 'obnoxious political slogans' I wouldn't want to debate them either.

A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know