Most everything that is possible with religion is possible without it.

[More Than A Feeling]

I thought I'd take a break from challenging the religious ideas of others, to talk about my own worldview, which is, at its core, naturalistic. I could dress it up with fancy titles like Buddhism, UUism, secular humanism, agnosticism, atheism, and they'd all fit to one degree or another, but they also obscure the issue, which is this: human beings are fundamentally animals, somewhat unique animals to be sure, but animals nonetheless. The only reason that makes us uncomfortable is because we've established dominance over other animals, and so see them, generally speaking, as lower and less than us.

However, there is nothing supernatural about us. We are completely natural. No uncaused free will, no supernatural soul, no creation by a supernatural entity. They aren't necessary to explain human nature. Our conciousness, sense of self, emotions, all derive from our physical bodies, and more specifically, the brain. So when the brain shuts down in death, consciousness is ended. People demonstrate the physicality of consciousness everytime they get drunk (among other examples), because they've altered their consciousness and perceptions by ingesting physical substances that act on physical parts of the body. By stimulating parts of the brain, scientists can give a person any number of experiences.

So why have I titled my post as I have? Because some people might find the worldview I have outlined above intimidating. They say things like "if there is no god, there is nothing to do but eat and drink and wait to die." Or "if we are all just animals, we shouldn't care about life, because wild animals die all the time, and it is no big deal." Or "if love is based on chemicals, then it isn't real." I don't buy it. We still want to survive, we still have to get along with each other, its a long time until death, and emotions are no less real for being based on chemicals in the brain. Those things don't change if you don't believe in any gods or that humans have a supernatural component. You can even do many of the same things that you do in a religion. Just because some practices are done for the wrong reason doesn't make them bad things to do.

In support of what I have been saying, I'd like to offer you the introduction to this article, from the Center for Naturalism, and if you are interested, i've linked to the rest. The other articles on that website are good, too, if you really want to take a look. If you want to learn about the faiths of other believers, how about a positive look at the worldview of a non-believer?:

Spirituality Without Faith

(These remarks are based on a talk given for the Humanist Association of Massachusetts in June of 2001 and were published in the Humanist, January, 2002.)

To what extent can secular humanists be spiritual? Can those of us with a more or less naturalistic view of the world, one that doesn’t involve spirits, gods, or ghosts, legitimately seek spiritual experience? There seems a prima facie difficulty here since traditional notions of spirituality often posit a non-physical realm categorically separate from the world described by science. Such dualism is of course the antithesis of naturalism, which understands existence to be of a piece, not split into the natural and supernatural. If for humanists the ultimate constituents of the world don’t include immaterial essences, souls, or spirits, then it might seem that spirituality is off limits.

If you look up the etymology of the word "spiritual," you’ll find that it derives from the Latin "spiritus," meaning "wind" or "breath." Standard dictionary definitions of spiritual contrast it with physical or material, so dualism is more or less built into the ordinary conception of spirituality. But I will argue that just as we can be good without God, we can have spirituality without spirits. Even within the monistic view of the cosmos entailed by a commitment to scientific empiricism, we can avail ourselves of spiritual experience and take an authentically spiritual stance when appreciating our situation as fully physical creatures embedded in a material universe. I hope to show that in its dualism, the traditional notion of spirituality in effect sets up problems of existential alienation and cognitive dissonance that religions have wrestled with, more or less unsuccessfully, for millennia. At a stroke, naturalism cuts these problems off at the root, providing an emotionally satisfying and cognitively unified basis for feeling completely at home in the world.

Many humanists, of course, will not necessarily want to access what I will call the "spiritual response." Even if I persuade them that there’s nothing conceptually incoherent about a naturalistic spirituality, they might be constitutionally disinclined to indulge in emotions or practices that even temporarily disengage the rational mind set. I won’t argue against such reluctance, since each of us has his or her own tastes in aesthetic experience, and varying "comfort levels" in letting go. But the spiritual response is there for those who wish to experience it. It’s intrinsically rewarding in its own right, and a valuable resource in getting us through tough times.

What would it mean to naturalize spirituality? What precisely would a naturalistic spirituality look like? Before turning to these questions, I want to briefly touch on some basic aspects and functions of spirituality, whatever its type, and then see how traditional spirituality fulfills (or tries to fulfill) these functions. This will set the stage for exploring how naturalism might work as well or better in grounding spiritual experience and in addressing our ultimate concerns.

http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua1.htm

[rurallib]

1. Moving tons of money from one person to another

without a visible service performed?

[Boojatta]

2. Do recipients of charity provide services in exchange for the charity?

If the answer is "no" and if a significant fraction of all charity that goes beyond the giver's circle of friends and relatives is motivated by religious considerations, then indeed you are right: religion moves tons of money from one person to answer without a visible service performed.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. Sure. Plenty of secular charities (and plenty of secular ponzi schemes)n/t

[Boojatta]

4. What percentage of all charity is from charities that are secular? e.o.m.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. Don't know. Does it matter? n/t

[Boojatta]

6. It might matter to recipients of charity.

Of course, you don't actually have any way to abolish religion. Nevertheless, one could ask whether or not abolishing religion -- regardless of whether or not it currently seems to be a feasible goal -- would be a good idea. If abolishing religion would cause a significant drop in charitable giving then, from the point of view of people who are not social Darwinists, abolishing religion would not be a good idea.

[cyborg_jim]

7. Despite what the religious might like to think

There's no indication that religiousness is tied to charity or that a lack of it is tied to miserliness.

[Boojatta]

8. When you say they are not tied, do you mean that there is no correlation? e.o.m.

[cyborg_jim]

19. Basically. After all, not all religions promote charity

[kwassa]

81. actualliy, I posted a link that proved exactly that awhile ago

Religious people do contribute more to charity than the non-religious.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

[PassingFair]

95. Secular people who give to the democratic party, in the effort

...to put people into office who will LOOK AFTER
THE COMMON GOOD, through NATIONAL HEALTH, and
other PROGRAMS, are also being CHARITABLE, and
are certainly NOT being counted in this type of
sampling.

Just a thought.

[Boojatta]

114. From the legal point of view, political contributions are not charitable

donations. Of course, anyone who claims that progressives are unlikely to donate to charity should support the claim.

[PassingFair]

116. Of course, I'm not speaking from a legal point of view.

:)

[More Than A Feeling]

9. If giving to charity is a good thing to do, would that change without religion?

There are so many justifications for giving to charity that do not require the supernatural. Empathy for other people who have been dealt lousy hands, desire to think of oneself and be thought of as a good person, hopes that someday, someone will do the same for you, tax deductions...none of these things are affected by religion, and I doubt recipients would care whether the person handing them the money didn't have religion.

[Boojatta]

14. There's a different between a motivation and a justification.

There are so many justifications for giving to charity (...) Empathy for other people who have been dealt lousy hands,

Not every emotion provokes action.

desire to think of oneself and be thought of as a good person,

What is the basis for considering those who give to charity to be good? Are there experiments in chemistry or physics that demonstrate that giving to charity is a good thing to do?

hopes that someday, someone will do the same for you,

Do you buy products that you don't want based on the hope that, if you someday are trying to sell what people don't want, then people might buy from you?

tax deductions

What motivated legislators to create tax deductions for charitable giving?

I doubt recipients would care whether the person handing them the money didn't have religion.

If you transport a carton of eggs with the care that is appropriate for transporting a carton of eggs, then it doesn't matter whether or not you really believe that it is a carton of eggs. In the individual case, the care used in transporting the carton is the only thing that matters. However, the usual way to elicit such care is to label the cartons with such words as "Fragile: contains eggs."

[More Than A Feeling]

17. You've got questions, I've got answers.

"Not every emotion provokes action."

Can't argue with that.

"What is the basis for considering those who give to charity to be good? Are there experiments in chemistry or physics that demonstrate that giving to charity is a good thing to do?"

We value altruism. It demonstrates that you are interested in the well-being of others. It motivates other people to want to be in society, and in relationship with you, because if you care about people you don't even know, there's a good chance that you are just a very caring person in general, and so knowing you will be a pleasant experience, and add to their happiness.

"Do you buy products that you don't want based on the hope that, if you someday are trying to sell what people don't want, then people might buy from you?"

No. However, I do want to be a part of a society that doesn't leave its needy helpless and destitute, and I want to do my own part to make society like that.

"What motivated legislators to create tax deductions for charitable giving?"

Because they viewed charitable giving as something that ought be encouraged, so that society doesn't, as I said, leave its needy helpless and destitute, and they used a mechanism of government to give that encouragement.

"If you transport a carton of eggs with the care that is appropriate for transporting a carton of eggs, then it doesn't matter whether or not you really believe that it is a carton of eggs. In the individual case, the care used in transporting the carton is the only thing that matters. However, the usual way to elicit such care is to label the cartons with such words as "Fragile: contains eggs.""

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps if you explained further?

[Boojatta]

56. A specific example and some questions

We value altruism. It demonstrates that you are interested in the well-being of others. It motivates other people to want to be in society, and in relationship with you, because if you care about people you don't even know, there's a good chance that you are just a very caring person in general, and so knowing you will be a pleasant experience, and add to their happiness.

You make it sound as though altruism is simply a tactic that sacrifices a small amount of time, money, or effort for a larger value in the realm of public relations. Is corporate PR a prototypical example of altruism?

Let's consider a specific example. In a country where possession of The Satanic Verses is a criminal offense, a technically legal but barely tolerated political opposition group comes under scrutiny by the government. A police agent is sent to search the home of someone who used to be a member of that political opposition group, but who is now an independent journalist. The police agent respects the person whose home is to be searched. Finding a copy of The Satanic Verses, the police agent says that hiding it better may not help because there may be more thorough searches of the homes of the journalist and the journalist's friends and relatives soon by other government agents. The police agent takes the book. The police agent promises to eventually return the book to the independent journalist, promises to not report finding the book, and keeps those promises.

It's obvious that the police agent is taking a risk. What potential benefit balances that risk? How is the specific decision described above likely to help the police agent?

For example, is word going to get out to potential immigrants that there are some good individuals in the country where the police agent works? Is the police agent going to have a more pleasant social life than police agents who enforce all of the laws? The police agent might not be able to take the risk of socializing with political dissidents. The police agent could change his mind and arrest the journalist using a very professional and polite manner. However, the journalist would then be behind bars.

[cyborg_jim]

60. It certainly can be

You make it sound as though altruism is simply a tactic that sacrifices a small amount of time, money, or effort for a larger value in the realm of public relations.

If you come from the premise that society is just a tactic that happens to be good at ensuring the survival and propagation of a species then this reasoning is not far behind.

[More Than A Feeling]

62. In addition to what cyborg jim mentioned, there is also the agent's own self-image to consider.

Is he comfortable acting as a person who performs his job even when the consequences strike him as unjustified, and harmful to someone who he respects? Or is he going to take the risk, and congratulate himself on acting according to his better lights?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I think it is a good idea to look at religion from

an anthropological and historic standpoint. I do not see religion as a thought process/belief system as something that is static, but rather as something that is continually evolving. I think you would agree that historically religion has been used for several purposes, among them as a way of explaining why things happen, a way to come up with laws and rules of conduct for a given society, and a way to pass down from one generation to another the stories that are the underpinnings of any given society.

In the past, you find any number of religions that see "God" or the "supernatural" as something "other" than everyday life. One could put the Jewish faith, the Christian faith, Zoroastrianism, and certain aspects of Hinduism in this group. And yet there have also been faiths that see things in another way. These would be followers of esoteric paths-Kabbalah, Sufism, Christian mysticism, some Hindus. They see things in unity--we are spirits, we live in a world of breath, of life. The first line of the Lord's Prayer has been translated from the Aramaic as "Oh Thou Who Art My Breath"--and then there is the famous Hindu saying "Tat Sam Asi"-You are That. The goal of the seeker on the esoteric path is direct experience--to find the Unity that is beyond name and form.

What I see with your "natural spirituality" and the long line of mystic desire for direct experience is another evolutionary leap for humankind's understand of the world and their place in it. Perhaps we will shrug off the term "religion", but I think we will always continue to try to understand, as fully as possible, the makings of our world and our relationship to nature.


Two quotes for you to ponder.

From the 10 Sufi Thoughts of Haz. Inayat Khan:

3. There is one holy book--the sacred manuscript of nature.


From the Dalai Lama, on the difference between Sufism and Buddhism:

In Sufism, everything is. In Buddhism, nothing is. Same thing, no difference.

[More Than A Feeling]

12. Traditionally, the mystic's goal has been unity with the divine.

If that changed to recognizing that there is no "divine", no "spirits" and than humans are already fully part and parcel of nature, I'd call that progress.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. your problem, then, is

in the words "divine" and "spirits". You say they don't exist.

[More Than A Feeling]

21. That's right, I don't believe in supernatural entities.

I understand that you can alter the definitions of those words to describe non-supernatural things, but we already have words without supernatural connotations for those. It's why the word "worldview" is appropriate, and "faith" is not, when talking about my perspective.

[kwassa]

82. Why is it important to you to get rid of these words?

I am not understanding your quest to rid the world of the idea of the supernatural, and replace them with non-religious words.

Why can't these concepts stay religious?

[More Than A Feeling]

83. Of course the ideas can stay religious and supernatural.

But wouldn't you agree that they are just unnecessary when redefined to mean things that are not religious and supernatural? We already have words to describe those things, which do not create confusion about whether the person is talking about the supernatural or not.

For example: A person says, "I believe in the soul (or god, or the spirit, or what-have-you)" Other person: "why do you believe in supernatural entities, how do you know what their characteristics are, etc" First person: "When i say I believe in the soul, I mean I believe only in the capacity to love. Nothing supernatural." Second person: "Oh...why didn't you say that in the first place? I think that exists as well."

There would be a lot of value in switching out words with religious connotations, for more, shall we say, down to earth concepts, if you do not mean to suggest the supernatural. We could agree on things like the capacity to love, but if you suggest that the capacity of love is supernatural in origin, by using that as the definition of the word "soul", then we will have an argument.

In other words, when you speak of supernatural entities or characteristics, isn't it better to be clear that that is what you are speaking of, especially if you aren't looking for an argument?

[kwassa]

94. I guess I don't have the negative association with "supernatural"

and I think most good spiritual concepts can be expressed in down-to-earth terms already. Whether something is considered supernatural or not is of very little importance to me, so I am not understanding your issue with it.

Are you looking for universal concepts? I think many involved in spiritual work already cross a number of lines and recognize the same concept in different religious or philosophical traditions. I have always had an eclectic approach, personally.

I don't think that religious ideas will ever be unnecessary, I think there will be religion and spiritual exploration as long as the human race exists. I think religion is necessary, to be direct about it.

[More Than A Feeling]

106. The supernatural has a lousy track record.

A great many things were once thought to be supernatural, but later we found that natural processes had much greater explanatory power than "God did it". That is why saying that something is supernatural is a bad idea, because, one, we might have already have a natural explanation, or at least the general idea of what one would look like, just not the way you would like it (if you'd rather interpret it as evidence of the supernatural). In that case, you'd simply be wrong. Second, if we haven't yet explained it, that means that there is a lack of knowledge. That gap may eventually be filled, and so calling it supernatural would be jumping to conclusions. That isn't a good way to learn things.

I do think that there are some universal concepts, and they are based on our successful responses to similar situations (struggle to survive, maintenance of a community, learning from past experience(or not)), not a divine origin as suggested by religions.

It depends on which religious ideas you mean. There are some ideas inherent to religion, which are about the supernatural, and don't appear to be necessary. Other religious ideas are actually not inherently religious, being justified whether gods existed or not. The Golden Rule is a good example of this.

[westerebus]

63. A blanket and an observation.

A man and wife had gone to bed when a commotion outside their house disturbed them. The wife asked her husband to see what the problem was. It was a cold night so he wrapped himself in a blanket and went out. In a few minutes he returned without the blanket. What was all the fuss, asked the wife? Apparently, it was about the blanket,said the shivering husband.
A Sufi and a Taoist passed each other on a very busy road on market day. Neither acknowledged the other. Asked about his journey that evening,the Sufi said he had seen only one teacher on the road today. The Taoist answered he had only encounter one other seeker on the path today.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Here's something that is impossible to have if you embrace religion:

The absence of evangical atheists screaming at you every time you voice an opinion.

Hells bells, you don't even have to be religious -- you simply have to tolerate those who believe in God and these areligious zealots will never leave you alone.

At the very best, I am a lapsed agnostic, but I am very comfortable in my beliefs (and lack of them). I am not compelled to scream at religious people every time they utter "bless you" or "happy Easter."

How goddam insecure do you have to be to make it your mission to campaign against all religions? I cannot imagine.

[More Than A Feeling]

13. Religious people criticize each other's beliefs all the time.

I don't see a lot of angst over that fact. How do you feel about people who think that the heart of Christianity is hating gays because God cannot tolerate anyone going against the order of the world that he set up? I'll bet you criticize them. I'll bet you feel no shame in doing so, in fact, I'll bet you feel righteous when you do so. And so you should. But when it comes to people who criticize belief in gods, suddenly, criticism is not ok. Why is criticizing that belief taboo?

[Buzz Clik]

16. Let's define my position very clearly:

I'm not talking about questioning specific doctrines, philosophies, or historical facts. What annoys me is the arrogance of blasting onto a thread -- or initiating a thread -- claiming the unbridled naivete' of anyone who believes in God or tolerates people who believe in God or even leaves open the possibility that God (gods, whatever) could possibly exist.

A religious debate is fine. Even a philosophical discussion about the existence of a deity is also fine. And I fully endorse slamming anyone who hides behind religion as justification for hatred of any person or group.

But the blanket comments, the insults, and the atheistic evangelism -- I cannot abide it.

Again, why is it necessary for those who are secure in their knowledge that God could not possibly exist to lecture those who hold the opposite point of view?

[okasha]

22. Short answer: it isn't.

I know a number of atheists in real life. They are all grounded, secure professionals and public servants, some at the top of their fields. None of them feels compelled to belittle those who disagree with them or attempt to force their own viewpoint on others.

[Buzz Clik]

23. And that is my experience with atheists, as well.

With the exception of a few combative teens and twentysomethings, the true atheists I know are exactly as you describe and would never engage in the behavior I describe.

EDIT: I would describe the discussion (subthread) starting with post #10 as a good example of an adult discussion between two people on opposite sides of the fence. I'm assuming that the first three exchanges are representative and it won't degrade.

[Goblinmonger]

52. Perhaps you can appreciate

that a great deal of us never talk about our atheism in the "real world." I am a professional. I teach high school English is a small Wisconsin town. I think it would be professional suicide for me to discuss my atheism openly. Coming on here gives a lot of us the ability to discuss openly what we can't otherwise.

[Buzz Clik]

55. Yes, I can appreciate that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. and it is so pointless

I don't think any atheist here is going to get a believer to change their beliefs. And I don't think any believer is going to change an atheist's mind, either. The arrogant attitude that some atheists have--especially when they point out that they know they are insulting and don't care--is a real turn off, especially when someone wishes to have a polite dialog. I know I have tried to refrain from using the word "belief" when talking with atheists because so many have objected to the term, and just now found from a polite person who is a non believer that he prefers "worldview" to "faith". Fine. I can live with using terms that are comfortable to the person. What I don't get is why the insults and stuff have to continue on the other side. Edited to add: I realize that not all atheists act in this way. But the ones that do seem to create quite a stir around here. Personally, I prefer to have a mature, respectful dialog with people.

There is a real point in discussing religion on R/T--no matter if you have a faith or a worldview--religion has had an historical influence upon culture. The religion of a region has helped make it the way it is, and we discount the religion of an area at our peril, for to understand the religion is to understand how the people think and view the world. I have gone on Islamic message boards where my liberal views have been thoroughly chastized by fundamentalists, but never have I been insulted or belittled by them because of the Islamic culture. Just isn't done. I think it is important that Westerners who aren't Muslim are at least familiar with this code of politeness one finds in the Islamic world when one addresses another individual. Do you see where knowing this could be important in understanding and working with Muslims? And this is only one example.

[cyborg_jim]

26. H&E did

I don't think any atheist here is going to get a believer to change their beliefs

H&E did

And I don't think any believer is going to change an atheist's mind, either.

I'm willing to change my mind. I don't think it's gonna happen, but I'm not at all interesting in being static about my beliefs.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. Oh really?

I hadn't heard about Heaven and Earth getting a believer to become an atheist. Is this a fact?

[More Than A Feeling]

32. No. Jim meant that I am the believer who became a naturalist.

Search the R/T archives under my name for time period April,04 to January 06. I was a believer then, and that's why I said to you that I knew where you were coming from. I wasn't kidding when I said that I had made the same posts you were making, expressing the same sentiments.

And I may lose the love of my life because of it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

33. Oh, ok

now I understand. I thought he was meaning that you had converted someone at DU to atheism, which is why I asked for clarification. Personally, I don't think anyone can "convert" another- the changes you choose to make in your life come from within yourself. (And forgive me if "convert" is an offensive term-by it I merely mean "change")

I know that when one makes a big decision like changing one's worldview, a lot of people wind up not understanding. And yes, it can be painful. I think when the process of change has run its course, you find yourself in a whole new world. I know I did when I found my way in life--I left family, a secure job, a whole way of life for a place I had never been. Would it be a comfort for you to know that those who really loved me did eventually accept me and come to understand me? May that same thing happen with you.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. I agree with you. My personal solution is to participate in the

discussions only so far as they seem well-intended. And there have been many here lately. Very interesting, if even for the mental exercise. And usually pleasant exchanges, even if we continue to disagree. (And as you say, that's 99.99% what's going to happen).

When the conversation degrades, I just leave it. It gets under my skin, but honest to goodness, there are far more other things that ought to be getting under my skin that I ought to be focused on.

I LOVE finding the similarities in different beliefs and/or worldviews. The underlying human experience is endlessly fascinating to me. But I'm not terribly interested in enduring ridicule to have that conversation.

So I'll stick to talking with the people who are really interested in a dialogue, not a monologue!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. Dialog and not monologue!

That's a good one!

I do believe that to truly understand another culture, it is important that we look at their religion, for historically religions have been important in every culture. I'd really like to see more of this aspect discussed in R/T--for example, I have a taste of how Islam has influenced culture in countries which practice it. I'd like to know more about the Jewish faith and its impact on how the culture of modern Israel has developed. Are there similarities between Jewish and Islamic culture that we as Americans need to know about so we can add light and not fire to the situation?

[JerseygirlCT]

30. I think in many ways, Islam and Judaism have more in common

with each other than they do with Christianity. I certainly understand, for instance, why a Jew and a Muslim would look a bit skeptical at the Christian's claim of monotheism in the context of the trinity.

But while I know some about Judaism, and a very little about Islam, I wouldn't consider myself near qualified enough to start making too many conjectures yet.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were all more concerned with what might join us than with what divides us?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. Yes

In one of my daily prayers is the line

Raise us above the distinctions and differences which divide us


Muslims do have a problem with the Trinity,as they see God as One (and in the case of Sufis, the Only Being). They revere Jesus as a prophet and Seal of the Saints, but don't believe he was crucified.

I think the main thing we as Americans need to avoid is another diplomatic gaffe as was made by a US general in the Middle East when he asked the Muslims and Jews at the negotiating table, "Can't we all be reasonable Christians about this?"

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Yes, I know. You'd think they might have found a vaccine for

ignorance by now...

[More Than A Feeling]

42. Well, what I know about that is, on beliefnet.com

if you take the Belief-o-matic quiz, Orthodox Judaism and Islam show up as the same percentage. Even if you get one of them 100%, the other will also be 100%.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

43. Now THAT is very interesting

I think in understanding both cultures, Americans need to better understand both belief systems.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Yeah, but everyone comes out with the Quakers near the top

don't they?

At least all my more liberal friends do. It's a Quaker conspiracy, I tell you!

All joking aside, yes, I wouldn't be in the least surprised.

Add to the religious similarities the tremendous cultural ones for Jews and Muslims in the middle east, and the situation just seems all the more senseless and sad.

[More Than A Feeling]

45. I get UU and secular humanism

*shrug*

[JerseygirlCT]

47. I haven't taken it in a little while -- maybe I should give it another

go.

Sounds like you're in the place you ought to be then, huh?

I suspect regardless of test, I might be hard to place!

(And you know I'm kidding about the Quakers. They *do* show up a lot, but it makes sense. And the idea of Quakers fixing a test to take over the world is so absurd it tickles my fancy).

[More Than A Feeling]

48. I am very much in the right place.

I'm kind of proud of it actually, and you should be too. After all, not everyone can handle the arena that is R/T, but we few, we happy few, we regulars of the forum...things that would bow a less hardy folk are everyday occurrences for us.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Never ceases to amaze me

How that man's words just STICK in the brain.

Could we dig Shakespeare out of our collective cultural consciousness? I don't think so.

Not that I'd want to!

[Goblinmonger]

53. I appreciate your presence in the arena

I really do. I was scrolling through those links you posted in another thread and you and I had it out a couple times. I love the arena. And I love reading your posts.

[cyborg_jim]

49. It would be even more absurd if

A flawed Internet belief quiz actually influenced that end without intention.

[JerseygirlCT]

50. That's something to think about! nt

[cyborg_jim]

57. What other people call conspiracies I call spontaneous absurdity

[kwassa]

80. I get UU

and that shows me the flaws in this test.

[More Than A Feeling]

34. We are on an internet message board.

Nobody forces you to read any thread or post. If you really can't abide the way you feel that atheists treat you, put them on ignore.

[Buzz Clik]

35. My ignore list has grown significantly today...

But that really wasn't the point.

[MistressOverdone]

37. Ignore is a great feature

and what you will find is your ignore list, as it grows, will appear in groups. I call them pile ons, and I am glad I don't have to witness them

[More Than A Feeling]

38. Look, I know its annoying. Like I told Ayesha, I made the exact same posts

complaining of the exact same thing, years ago. You can search my name in the R/T archives, beginning Apr 04, and see that I have.

It all boils down to identity and ideas. From my perspective, whether gods exist or not is an idea. It was never my identity the way it would be for someone raised in religion, which I was not. But it still bothered me that insofar as I held ideas that some people found unbelievable, their respect for the ideas wasn't there, and therefore I felt like their respect for me wasn't there.

But it isn't so. You can respect a person without respecting their ideas. We just happen to be in a forum where religious ideas get disrespected. Sometimes a persons identity gets caught in the crossfire of debate.

If you want my advice, think about it this way: the posts that offend you are meant for your ideas, not you as a person.

[Buzz Clik]

54. Excellent comments.

I particularly liked this:

You can respect a person without respecting their ideas. We just happen to be in a forum where religious ideas get disrespected. Sometimes a persons identity gets caught in the crossfire of debate.

If you want my advice, think about it this way: the posts that offend you are meant for your ideas, not you as a person.

And I do the best I can in carefully differentiating between the attack on the ideas (whether in the religion/theology forum or any other) and an attack on the person espousing or presenting the ideas.

As long as the argument follows the lines of "I don't agree with you -- there is (or isn't) a god." (substitute global warming or 9/11 conspiracy or whatever), then I'm fine. But, when it gets to "... and anyone who believes that is a fool," that's when it gets nasty.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

91. How goddamn insecure do you have to be to not tolerate one iota of questioning in your faith?

There's a taboo on criticizing religion in so-called "polite" society. It apparently takes people a while to realize that that taboo is nonexistent on DU.

[Boojatta]

18. "Most everything that is possible with religion is possible without it."

It would be possible for a monkey at a typewriter to write any given work that Shakespeare wrote, but it's not likely.

[cyborg_jim]

20. Wouldn't we need atheistic and theistic monkeys to test that?

[Evoman]

24. Where did all the miracles go?

Where are all the messiahs? Where are all the people crossing water? Where are all the burning bushes?

Why do we only get pictures of Mary on nachos, and Jesus on dogs butts these days?




The easy answer? The most probable answer? There have never been miracles..people believed them to be miracles because of their ignorance.

Jesus never rose from the dead, no matter how hard you believe.

[SidDithers]

58. And why does god hate amputees?...

I mean, really, just a few spontaneously regrown limbs, and even I might consider converting.

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

64. Only Evoman would post that in here on Holy Day!

:spray:

:rofl:

[Evoman]

75. I love that picture, you can't blame me.

Nice to see you again :hi:

[MistressOverdone]

36. I am of the belief that all the great miracles

had bases within the laws of the universe. But we just don't understand all those laws.

Two bare centuries ago we would hever had believed in something as bizarre as a radio wave.

We have a lot to learn. I believe God gave us the universe with a set of laws, axioms, and He doesn't stray from them.

But our perspective is limited, our knowledge incomplete.

[More Than A Feeling]

40. If you think that God doesn't stray from them, can you justify a belief

in the return to life of a three-day-old corpse? Or do you judge the story of the resurrection to be more metaphoric?

The reason I ask is that it seems to me that for most people, miracles are a god suspending the rules, not acting in accordance with them.

[cyborg_jim]

41. Yes, it would be a problem for believers if physics allowed miracles

We might be able to achieve them without a god.

[MistressOverdone]

78. Good question

VERY good question. And my answer has changed with stages of my life. So many possibilities!

Of course, there is the option that God suspended the laws this time and reached down and took him back.

Next, it happened sometime Saturday, nobody really knows when because it was sabbath. The corpse could have been as fresh as one day and some hours. We've all heard of people turning up alive on the autopsy table before the first cut. However, most of them don't go on to physically ascend to heaven

And I'll even buy the concept (although not as intriguing) that the ressurection was a metaphor for our eventual entering into a life eternal. Christ died, apostles had dreams, visions, etc., that proved to them he was alive as consciousness somewhere (ala John Edwards? maybe?)

Bottom line, I dunno. I like the first option. I think there are truths in the Bible but they are nuggets hidden inside years of oral history and people with agendas. I personally don't spend too much time sortng it out because my personal relationship with this spirit is not dependent of the veracity of each and every detail.

And there is always the possibility that, along wit 90% of the population, I am mentally ill, childish, delusional, believe in fairy tales, etc. But that's okay. I'm having a very nice life doing it this way!

[varkam]

46. K&R - Thanks for that

:thumbsup:

[SidDithers]

59. Thank you for posting...

it was a good read.

:toast:

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

61. K&R

Some of us do remember that this is a public forum and that posts like this are supposed to make people think, not whine.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

66. Nope just confused by your cryptic post.

but welcome to DU anyway:hi:

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

68. Well...yeah, it does. But that has nothing to do with anything!

:silly:

I'm not sure what I'm deceived about, so why don't you tell me?

[beam me up scottie]

69. Define "deceived".

Semantics are everything in this forum, fyi.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

71. Interesting.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, because I have no enemies that I am aware of. I don't think people notice me that much, or that I offend them enough to be my enemy.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Don't you know when you're being "saved" ?

You should thank this person who is so obviously (and quite disturbingly) concerned with your well being.

[beam me up scottie]

72. And I'm to believe you can see through all that and tell them apart?

Got it. ;)

[beam me up scottie]

74. I'm convinced !!! You did it, you saved me!

How many Ronald McDollars do you get for each one of us when you get to wherever it is you think you're going?

And when I become un-saved, say, in about ten seconds, do you have to give them back?

[cosmik debris]

84. This Really Sucks!!!!

When I was young I had to go to bed before the grown ups started having fun. Now that I'm old, I fall asleep before the young folks start having fun. This Really Sucks! Oh well. :)

[beam me up scottie]

117. You didn't miss much, trust me.

I have even less respect for proselytizers who are dishonest about what they're selling than I have for the other type.

[eridani]

76. Spirit is an emergent property of complex matter--

--just as heat is an emergent property of moving matter. When you make arguments like this, however, you run up against the structure of our brains, which just love to reify emergent properties. Seeing as how it took some of humanity's smartest specimens a couple of hundred years to figure out that heat was not a reified substance (caloric), it's probably a complete waste of time to try to convince Joe or Jane Average that spirit can't exist independently of complex matter and fly around like a tether ball cut loose, especially since we are complex enough to figure out death and don't like the idea of non-existence one little bit.

Destroy the complexity of your brain by dropping it onto pavement from a sufficient height, and your soul gets smashed along with it. Computers won't run Linux or Windows after being dropped from a similar height either.

Tell me why the stars do shine
Tell me why the ivy twines
Tell me why the sky's so blue
And I will tell you just why I love you.

Nuclear fusion is why stars shine
Tropisms make the ivy twine
Rayleigh scattering makes the sky so blue
Gonads and hormones are why I love you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. Which seems more like 'mind', in the meanings and definitions I normally use

I feel the word 'spirit' carries with it too much baggage - ghosts, "the Holy Spirit", 'world spirit' and so on. Though 'mind' gets more associated with reasoning, while 'spirit' is more emotional.

It's strange that a 'hive mind' is generally looked on with suspicion, but 'world spirit' with approval. Should our explicit thoughts be individual, but our implicit feelings shared?

[MistressOverdone]

79. Of course it is

in the here and now. I'm kind of looking beyond that at this point in my life.

[More Than A Feeling]

92. That's the one thing I can think of, that religion has, and naturalism does not.

A hope that death is not the end of consciousness. I will admit that as a young person, I don't need religion to calm anxiety about death, I have youth for that:D However, my hope is that since I accept that death of the body ends consciousness now, getting older alone won't cause me to change my mind. Anxiety is not evidence. Besides, the finality of death is a good reason to get everything done that I want to now, rather that hoping that there is more time after my time has run out.

[skepticscott]

98. Not a hope, in many cases

but a firm, unshakeable conviction that certain people are going to live forever in paradise while other people (religion specializes in "us and "them") will roast forever in the agonizing flames of hell. I know there are many Christians who don't just believe that, but wish for it fervently. Pretty sad.

[MistressOverdone]

119. There will always be people who want to see

"the other side" (whomever that may be) suffer. Not the most charming characteristic of our species.

[MistressOverdone]

118. Oddly enough I totally agree with you

if it turns out that I am wrong about Christianity, one of the things that comforts me is the thought of going back to the earth. Sure, consciousness will be gone, but you know what? I'm not sure I WANT to be conscious for all eternity. I mean, do we get to SLEEP in heaven? That worries me.

I'm okay with just not being, as long as particles of me are stil floating around. I like that.

But Jesus, if you're listening, please don't cross me off the list or anything.

As my kids say, "It's all good."

[okasha]

85. I look forward to the gentleman's forthcoming works:

"Appreciating Beethoven Through Earplugs" and "The Joy of Amoeba Sex."

[More Than A Feeling]

87. In other words, its impossible to appreciate the beauty of a garden

, the love and kindness of others, and the joy of life without believing that supernatural beings created all those things and exist in them? Have you ever even tried?

[okasha]

89. Straw man.

Emotional and aesthetic experience is not synonymous with spiritual experience. Neither is an acid trip, despite an old friend of mine who still goes on about "chemical yogas." :evilgrin:

[More Than A Feeling]

90. That's exactly what a spiritual experience is.

If not, it would help to explain your original comment so that I understand your meaning more plainly.

[okasha]

97. My original comment was pretty plain.

If you've deafened yourself, you won't hear music. If you reproduce by division, you won't have sex.

If you have no spirit, you won't have a spiritual experience. You can rename an emotional or aesthetic experience a "spiritual" experience, but you will still be having an emotional or aesthetic experience, not a spiritual one.

[skepticscott]

99. And who are you

to define what a "spiritual" experience is for anyone but yourself? Sex and music are relatively well-defined terms, but I defy you to show me definitions of "spirit" and "spiritual" that are anything close to universal.

[okasha]

100. The phenomenon is universal,

crosscultural, and apparently differs very little from the first written evidence to the present. See this essay for some key definitions and a proposed method of investigation. The site is maintained by the University of Vermont.

http://www.uvm.edu/giee/Tom/spirit/docs/InnerKnowledge.html

[skepticscott]

101. Oh, please

Are you telling me this poppycock represents universally agreed upon phenomema, knowledge and ideas?

For the trained contemplatives, who are the only true experts in these matters, the wisdom of contemplation is viewed "as a direct, nonconceptual intuition that is beyond words, concepts and dualities; hence it is described as transverbal, transrational, and nondual" (Walsh, 1993, p. 223). Apparently, this knowledge is not shaped by language, concepts, cultural "forms of life", etc. because the Real transcends, surrounds, and overflows the categories of thought 1 (Radhakrishnan, 1940, p. 43). The process of interpreting spiritual experiences using concepts and beliefs utilizes the "eye of the mind". Although philosophical systems can and are derived from contemplative knowledge (see the next section), the fundamental transrational insights may be comprehensible only to those who have adequately trained their "eye of contemplation" and hence "cannot be judged by unenlightened people from the worm's-eye view of book learning" (Vimilo, 1974, p. 43).

Increasing numbers of researchers and philosophers (Foreman 1990, 1998, 1999; Andresen & Foreman, 2001) are challenging the prevailing methodologies in the academic study of spirituality - which have centered on linguistic and cultural analysis -and particularly the postmodern and deconstructivist approaches championed by Derrida and others. They have concluded that modern philosophy of mysticism has misrepresented a class of "nondual" mystical experiences by interpreting them using a "Kantian" epistemology derived from studies of ordinary human experience. Perovich (1990) asserts that this philosophy "rests on a mistake, the mistake of assuming that mystical experience is narrowly 'human' experience and, so, is subject to the same treatment as is 'human' experience generally. But the mystics insist that their knowledge is gained as the result of employing faculties which are not the ordinary 'human' ones. At the very least, these claims translate as denials of the validity of 'Kantian' epistemology in the mystical sphere".

Even in these few paragraphs there is no agreement on what consitutes a spiritual experience. There are only attempts to divide the supremely wise navel gazers from the worm-like rest of us.

[okasha]

102. Don't feel bad.

As Klopstock put it, "The little spring worm has a soul, too!" ;)

Actually, while I was waiting for your reply, I asked my cat what he thought you would say. He furrowed his brow for a moment, wrote, and gave me a folded paper, which I've just now opened. It reads:

Are you telling me this poppycock represents universally agreed upon phenomema, knowledge and ideas?

long grey quote

Even in these few paragraphs there is no agreement on what consitutes a spiritual experience. There are only attempts to divide the supremely wise navel gazers from the worm-like rest of us.

To the vast surprise of no one. . ..

[skepticscott]

112. Sorry son

but sometimes our pets are wiser than their owners. Your emperor has no clothes, and all of the obscuratory blather in the world can't change that. If the contemplative experience has really uncovered any universal truths (as opposed to truths discovered by individuals or similarly minded groups of individuals), then let's hear about them. While you're at it, give us some specific examples of what is understood and what can be accomplished as a result of this knowledge, that wasn't understood or couldn't be done a century ago. And try to do better than my dog, because I'm asking him the same questions.

[More Than A Feeling]

104. You seem to be suggesting that if you don't believe you have a spirit

then you don't have one. I suppose that the corollary would be that if you do believe that you have a spirit, then you do have one. Objective facts don't work like that. George Washington was the first president of the United States, whether you believe it or not, and whether that makes you feel good or not. If having a spirit is not objective, it must be subjective. That is, you assume that you have a "spirit", and then interpret your experiences in a way to confirm that. That would be an emotional commitment, confirmed by aesthetic experience. Exactly as I said.

[okasha]

105. Not quite.

You say humans don't have a spirit. I'm merely pointing out that without a spirit, you can't have a spiritual experience, simply because you lack the equipment--just as you can't hear music if you've stopped your ears. Ergo, you feel the need to redefine aesthetic and emotional experiences as spiritual, even though that's bogus. Let's face it, I'd love to redefine huevos rancheros as fat- and cholesterol-free, but saying so doesn't make it so.

Since both study and experience tell me you're wrong about the lack of spirit, though, you probably* can have a spiritual experience. You may choose to name it something else because the terms don't suit you, but that won't change its nature.

*I'm hedging there because there may in fact be people who can't, just as some can't hear, or perceive color.

[More Than A Feeling]

107. You're still assuming that your experiences are supernatural, rather than natural

in origin. Why is that?

[okasha]

108. I'm assuming that spiritual experiences

are natural. Why would you think they're not?

[More Than A Feeling]

109. When you said spirit, I thought you were referring to the proverbial

"ghost in the machine". A supernatural and non-physical part of human beings that is said to be the "essence" of who we are, possibly immortal.

If you are in fact not referring to that, if you agree with me that humans are fully physical, then I fully agree with you that spiritual experiences are possible.

On the other hand, if you are referring to the "ghost in the machine", then while I would still agree that spiritual experiences are possible, they do not depend on a "soul", belief in said "soul", belief in a "god", the existence of a "god", and they are not proof of any of the foregoing, or any other supernatural phenomena.

This is why religious language has problems. Words like "spirit" confuse. A lot of people do believe in the "ghost in the machine".

[okasha]

110. Take out the "supernatural" in your second sentence,

and you've got a close approximation of my definition. Again--why do you insist on calling this part of a living creature "supernatural"? It exists in nature. How is something that exists in nature not natural?

(I know you don't mean this in a bigoted way, but damn, I'm having flashbacks to arguing with folks who call homosexuality "unnatural.")

[More Than A Feeling]

111. Ok, so its non-physical. Even having said that, is it located in any particular part of the body?

If you say no, then I will continue calling it supernatural, because it is my opinion at this time, that there is no part of us that does not derive from some physical part of the body. ie. the brain, or the glands. That is what I mean by natural, that it derives from the physical universe, including our bodies.

[pat_k]

86. The golden rule. That's what is all boils down to.

And that means ALL others.

Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal.
-- The Dalai Lama

And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
-- Epistle to the Son of the Wolf (Bahá'í Faith)

...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?
-- Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 (Buddhism)

None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.
-- Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths (Islam)

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.
-- Talmud, Shabbat 31a (Judaism)

Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.
-- Drawn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Unmerciful_Servant">the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Christianity)

[More Than A Feeling]

88. That's another thing that religion isn't necessary for!

Good call!

[Lerkfish]

93. Music and Art aren't absolutely necessary, either

yet they enrich the human experience.

[Fran Kubelik]

96. Exactly.

:)

[More Than A Feeling]

103. You aren't directly addressing the issue.

The question is not "does religion enrich the human experience." It's "to whatever extent it does provide value, is any of that value unavailable if you do not assent to supernatural ideas, and instead take the naturalistic view of the universe, and humanity?" My OP and the article it linked to suggested that most of the same value was available with the naturalistic view.

[Lerkfish]

113. well, you may disagree, but I think my post directly addresses the question.

Humans don't NEED music to function as organisms, and yet, nearly all human cultures seek and use music to enrich their lives. They make a CHOICE to participate in something that touches them on a deeper level than merely survival as an organism. Humans could survive without music, yet they choose not to.

Therefore, music has some value, else it would have been abandoned long ago.


similarly:


Humans don't NEED religion or spirituality to function as organisms, and yet, nearly all human cultures seek and use spirituality to enrich their lives. They make a CHOICE to participate in something that touches them on a deeper level than merely survival as an organism. Humans could survive without religion, yet they choose not to.

Therefore, religion has some value, else it would have been abandoned long ago.


if you wish to eliminate religion because you find it unnecessary, to be consistent, you'll have to also eliminate music, art, humor and anything not directly related to survival of the organism.

[cyborg_jim]

115. Um, his point is we can have all that without the 'value added' supernatural stuff

Is a god necessary for music?

If not, then by your argument, why would one be necessary for spirituality?

I think you are conflating the 'value' of religion with the 'value' of the totalities of the idea contained within.

For example, if Christianity proposes Church and singing and fellowship and that stuff is good for people IT DOES NOT mean that Moses wrestled Yahweh. We can clearly separate the utilities of the ideas.

This is what H&E is getting at.