Is There a God?
- Thread starter kdt26417
- Start date
My God ... I mean, my dead God ... proof at last! 
Thanks for the poll repairs NYC. I agree under the circumstances it makes more sense to leave Jane in her original spot.
Hope the temporary technical difficulties won't discourage new votes and continued vigorous discussion!
Thanks for the poll repairs NYC. I agree under the circumstances it makes more sense to leave Jane in her original spot.
Hope the temporary technical difficulties won't discourage new votes and continued vigorous discussion!
SuddenlyStoneElf
New member
Re: Spirituality
Sam Harris has an interesting view of "spirituality" which is divorced from religion. I had been looking for such a definition for quite some time and am happy someone far better than me came up with it
http://www.samharris.org/waking-up
Sam Harris has an interesting view of "spirituality" which is divorced from religion. I had been looking for such a definition for quite some time and am happy someone far better than me came up with it
http://www.samharris.org/waking-up
InsaneMystic
Member
Other.
I'm a panentheist. Technically, I'm a pretty strong agnostic (i.e., I'm certain beyond any reasonable doubt that it's impossible for any human being to ever objectively know the answer to that question, so, being human myself, I obviously don't know the answer, either);
in practice/effectively, I live my life as a very faithful (though independent/non-denominational), moderately strong (panen)theist, treating the existence of the divine as a subjective fact that I won't bother doubting, as nothing constructive could ever come to me from such doubt.
It's inevitable and necessary for every human to blindly believe something if they intend to remain at all functional in this world. For me, personally, the "god axiom" is one that continues to perform admirably well in this regard; I don't see that changing as long as I live.
TL;DR - knowledge is humanly irrelevant, faith is everything.
I'm a panentheist. Technically, I'm a pretty strong agnostic (i.e., I'm certain beyond any reasonable doubt that it's impossible for any human being to ever objectively know the answer to that question, so, being human myself, I obviously don't know the answer, either);
in practice/effectively, I live my life as a very faithful (though independent/non-denominational), moderately strong (panen)theist, treating the existence of the divine as a subjective fact that I won't bother doubting, as nothing constructive could ever come to me from such doubt.
It's inevitable and necessary for every human to blindly believe something if they intend to remain at all functional in this world. For me, personally, the "god axiom" is one that continues to perform admirably well in this regard; I don't see that changing as long as I live.
TL;DR - knowledge is humanly irrelevant, faith is everything.
opalescent
Active member
I'm on 'Team Divine' as in I have decided that the divine exists. And I believe the divine interacts with us and with this world (and all the worlds). However, I also believe that the exact nature of the divine is a question that cannot be answered while we are embodied. We perceive divinity through a glass darkly, shining reflections, brief glimpses. I do not believe that while living as humans we can perceive divinity fully - many traditions have the idea that humans cannot bear seeing divinity in all its facets all at once. (To use a pop culture reference, this is why everyone who looked upon the open Ark in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' melted and those who closed their eyes survived.) I think generally, we can only perceive a tiny fraction of divinity while alive. I do think there are exceptions - people who perceive and can teach others a bit more about divinity. And perhaps we will grow to the point where each of us can perceive more while embodied. Some folks think this is the point of being 'enlightened'. I remain unconvinced about if enlightenment is a worthwhile goal or a sideshow. So I remain unknowing about the nature of divinity. And why I didn't enter a vote in the poll.
I also wonder if some atheists are reacting to a particular definition of divinity - namely the Christian-Islam-Judaism traditions of a omniscient, omnipotent unitary god - and would have different responses to other 'flavors' of divinity. The objections I've heard some atheists have to religion and divinity are based on a monotheistic spirituality. Would there be similar reactions against other conceptions of divinity?
For example, some polytheistic pagans find the concept of faith useless. They have direct, personal interactions and relationships with the gods they have chosen (or the gods who have chosen them). They don't have to wonder if the gods exist when they interact personally with them. They know. Now, can they prove scientifically that they are interacting with gods? Nope, of course not. Science cannot prove or disprove events which cannot be replicated reliably by everyone. Not everyone will have this type of relationship to godhead - many polytheists don't. But for those who do, the idea of faith - a central concept to many traditions - is irrelevant.
A fascinating book I suggest everyone interested in this topic read is 'Walking with the Gods: Modern People Talk about Deities, Faith, and Recreating Ancient Traditions' by W.D. Wilkerson. It is available in Kindle on Amazon. The author did an ethnographic study of people who are polytheists from various traditions. She had a conversation with them and captured that conversation 'as is' as much as possible so the people talk for themselves rather than being interpreted by others.
Here is an interview with the author: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbeckett/2014/04/walking-with-the-gods-an-interview.html.
I also wonder if some atheists are reacting to a particular definition of divinity - namely the Christian-Islam-Judaism traditions of a omniscient, omnipotent unitary god - and would have different responses to other 'flavors' of divinity. The objections I've heard some atheists have to religion and divinity are based on a monotheistic spirituality. Would there be similar reactions against other conceptions of divinity?
For example, some polytheistic pagans find the concept of faith useless. They have direct, personal interactions and relationships with the gods they have chosen (or the gods who have chosen them). They don't have to wonder if the gods exist when they interact personally with them. They know. Now, can they prove scientifically that they are interacting with gods? Nope, of course not. Science cannot prove or disprove events which cannot be replicated reliably by everyone. Not everyone will have this type of relationship to godhead - many polytheists don't. But for those who do, the idea of faith - a central concept to many traditions - is irrelevant.
A fascinating book I suggest everyone interested in this topic read is 'Walking with the Gods: Modern People Talk about Deities, Faith, and Recreating Ancient Traditions' by W.D. Wilkerson. It is available in Kindle on Amazon. The author did an ethnographic study of people who are polytheists from various traditions. She had a conversation with them and captured that conversation 'as is' as much as possible so the people talk for themselves rather than being interpreted by others.
Here is an interview with the author: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbeckett/2014/04/walking-with-the-gods-an-interview.html.
Last edited:
Yup. Which is why I asked it that way to help me organize my own answer. I know it isn't going to work for everyone.
Thanks to both for the titles. I haven't read those.
I resonated with this from this article...
I don't think spiritual awakening has to involve anything more than becoming aware of myself and how I fit into the bigger world and making sense of that by forming my own values and beliefs to give my life meaning as it is lived.
I think people have to find their own way for their own lives. I also think people can figure out how they want to do that and what they want to include in their life to enable them to do that. There's no lack of sources, and if people want to include religion or God as one of their sources? Good for them. It's their journey. I don't have to pick the same things for mine, but good for them all the same.
I am usually happy to hear of people being at peace, ok in themselves and in their lives.
Galagirl
Last edited:
JaneQSmythe
Well-known member
Personally, I don't find this statement to be axiomatic at all. Why should it be "inevitable and necessary" to have blind faith? What do you consider the hallmarks that identify someone as "functional"?
JaneQ
JaneQSmythe
Well-known member
Hmmm...I don't see decay of the body as evidence against - since most versions of afterlife seem to rely on a "soul" or consciousness that is separate from the body that persists after we die. So dead meat rotting wouldn't matter anymore than a butterfly leaving its cocoon behind...
I see it more as that they have to suffer the cruelty that they inflicted on you, from your perspective, while knowing that they were the cause of that suffering. You experiencing their response to your actions would be a minimal blip - since, in my mind, they could not have been very affected by your actions if they could harm you in that fashion. At the most it might provide you with some insight as to how they could have come to that point - and help foster the compassion to forgive them.
I don't need an afterlife to beat myself up over those instances - I do that fine by myself as well. But, perhaps what you learn is that those instances that you dwell on actually turned out to NOT be that terrible from the perspective of the entity. For instance, my father beats himself up, still, 38 years after the fact, for something that a.) was an accident b.) was a momentary hurt c.) that I don't even remember.
Perhaps you learn that, as a result of your lapse, that person actually learned to forgive or culled some other positive lesson from the event. This doesn't negate the thing that you did but does put it in the perspective of lessons and mistakes learned from. And some hurts are necessary/beneficial. Yes, I would suffer the fear and pain that my dog suffers if I have to take it to the vet for a shot - but the experience would be informed by the knowledge that it was, in fact, to stave off a worse suffering.
I think that forgiveness is important/beneficial for the person that was wronged (as opposed to revenge or seeking "fairness"). But being forgiven doesn't absolve me, as the person who did the wrong, from seeking atonement for my actions as part of my healing for inflicting hurt on another.
I have one long-time friend in Utah who tends to posit that whether we have faith (e.g. in the existence of God/s) should be decided less on apparent facts and truths, than on an analysis on how and whether that faith will benefit us in our life. I suppose his method is as good as any when one can't *know* whether to believe anyway ... although I personally remain a strict "what are the apparent facts" proponent.
I got the poll choice, "God is a Thing, not a Being; God is a State of Perfect Enlightenment," from my younger brother. He has been through a lot in the past few years and his faith shot way down until he formulated a whole new model of God. Instead of being a Person who could help us (with His magic) in our mortal affairs, God is a Thing, a State of High Energy comparable to the Force on Star Wars. In this model, all of us can advance spiritually and at "times" (though this God isn't confined by Time) be in a state of oneness with God.
If I were a believer, I'd choose, "There is/are (a) God/dess/es, (a) Being/s Who can't intervene in our temporal affairs." That's the God/s that make/s the most sense to me, that simultaneously appeal/s the most to my ultimate desires (or if you prefer, my selfishness and excessive ego). If I were voting for the anthropomorphic God I was raised on in the Mormon church, then voting, "There is no God," would have been a no-brainer for me. Luckily I've considered a wide range of "God models" over the years, so I feel like I have a reasonably good idea, within mortal bounds, of what I'm passing up on when I choose the atheist creed.
I actually don't claim to have conclusive proof of God's or Gods' non-existence; at least I don't ultimately base my unbelief on proof. It's an intuitive state of mind; I won't deny it. I *feel* like no God/s exist/s. That's my bottom line. Although, I derive much (most?) of this feeling from what I can perceive with my physical senses.
Re (from JaneQSmythe):
I like the analogy, though ironically it uses a physical entity -- a butterfly -- to illustrate the path of the soul which is generally not thought of as physical at least not in the same way a butterfly is thought of.
My perception is more like, there is a caterpillar, then a cocoon, then the cocoon opens but there's nothing inside that I can see -- no butterfly. I have been unable to perceive the existence of the butterfly to my own personal satisfaction. Others have had satisfactory manifestations of the butterfly and I wouldn't want to argue with that because I haven't been in their shoes and don't assume I can imagine what they've perceived or felt.
Re:
Oh I suppose I could handle that. It's not my great desire to spend much time thinking about them (much less experiencing their worldview), but I can almost imagine how this version of "The Last Judgment" could be an enlightening experience for me.
Re:
Yes, I can always hope I'll get lucky in that regard.
Re: the beneficial nature of (some? all?) hurts ... is actually a concept I stopped believing in years before I stopped believing in God. Yes, many people do emerge from the other side of a storm in a better spiritual frame of mind than when they entered the storm. But my conclusion is that they achieved that benefit *in spite of* the storm, rather than because of it.
Re:
I do believe that wrongdoers (something we all are at times) have a moral responsibility to (correct their wrongful behavioral pattern and) make amends as best they can, regardless of whether their victims forgive them.
I got the poll choice, "God is a Thing, not a Being; God is a State of Perfect Enlightenment," from my younger brother. He has been through a lot in the past few years and his faith shot way down until he formulated a whole new model of God. Instead of being a Person who could help us (with His magic) in our mortal affairs, God is a Thing, a State of High Energy comparable to the Force on Star Wars. In this model, all of us can advance spiritually and at "times" (though this God isn't confined by Time) be in a state of oneness with God.
If I were a believer, I'd choose, "There is/are (a) God/dess/es, (a) Being/s Who can't intervene in our temporal affairs." That's the God/s that make/s the most sense to me, that simultaneously appeal/s the most to my ultimate desires (or if you prefer, my selfishness and excessive ego). If I were voting for the anthropomorphic God I was raised on in the Mormon church, then voting, "There is no God," would have been a no-brainer for me. Luckily I've considered a wide range of "God models" over the years, so I feel like I have a reasonably good idea, within mortal bounds, of what I'm passing up on when I choose the atheist creed.
I actually don't claim to have conclusive proof of God's or Gods' non-existence; at least I don't ultimately base my unbelief on proof. It's an intuitive state of mind; I won't deny it. I *feel* like no God/s exist/s. That's my bottom line. Although, I derive much (most?) of this feeling from what I can perceive with my physical senses.
Re (from JaneQSmythe):
I like the analogy, though ironically it uses a physical entity -- a butterfly -- to illustrate the path of the soul which is generally not thought of as physical at least not in the same way a butterfly is thought of.
My perception is more like, there is a caterpillar, then a cocoon, then the cocoon opens but there's nothing inside that I can see -- no butterfly. I have been unable to perceive the existence of the butterfly to my own personal satisfaction. Others have had satisfactory manifestations of the butterfly and I wouldn't want to argue with that because I haven't been in their shoes and don't assume I can imagine what they've perceived or felt.
Re:
Oh I suppose I could handle that. It's not my great desire to spend much time thinking about them (much less experiencing their worldview), but I can almost imagine how this version of "The Last Judgment" could be an enlightening experience for me.
Re:
Yes, I can always hope I'll get lucky in that regard.
Re: the beneficial nature of (some? all?) hurts ... is actually a concept I stopped believing in years before I stopped believing in God. Yes, many people do emerge from the other side of a storm in a better spiritual frame of mind than when they entered the storm. But my conclusion is that they achieved that benefit *in spite of* the storm, rather than because of it.
Re:
I do believe that wrongdoers (something we all are at times) have a moral responsibility to (correct their wrongful behavioral pattern and) make amends as best they can, regardless of whether their victims forgive them.
JaneQSmythe
Well-known member
It not the hurt that is beneficial, but that doesn't mean that no benefit occurs. Just like doing nice things for people doesn't necessarily help them - and can, in certain circumstances, cause harm. (The parent, for instance, who repeatedly "bails out" their kids - who never learn that actions have consequences.) We can never "know" the ultimate results of our choices ahead of time - we can only do the best we can with the information that we have. In hindsight, we might be able to glean some insight that affects future actions - or we might come to an erroneous conclusion.
Our actions reverberate in the context of the lives of the people we affect - our actions do not occur in a vacuum. We can never know every single thread in the tapestry of someone's life. We often have to make a call between two "bad" choices - we often choose the one that causes the least "harm" - based on our own experiences, judgement, and the info we have on hand.
Extreme example: So, say I am late meeting a friend on a dinner date so I can stop and help a stranger change a tire while they are taking their kid to the emergency room. Turns out - the kid just had a cold and it wasn't an emergency but my friend has repressed underlying abandonment issues from childhood and falls into a deep depression and commits suicide...
None of these things are my fault - I didn't give the kid a cold, I didn't make the tire go flat, I didn't cause my friend's abandonment issues in the first place, and I didn't cause them to commit suicide. Might I have made a different decision had I had more info? yes. But, at the time, you do the best you can in the situations you find yourself in...not, in my opinion, because you are going to be somehow "rewarded" in the "afterlife" - but because the world is a pleasanter place to live if we all do our best to make it so. I can't control anyone's actions but my own, so it starts with me.
InsaneMystic
Member
Because the only thing we can know for certain is that thought exists. (One step beyond Descartes' famous "cogito"... I do not even have proof that it actually is me doing this thinking.) Everything else requires going with unproven and unprovable assumptions (= blind faith). And yes, this includes empirical science - as it rests on axioms and assumptions, it absolutely is a system rooted in blind faith.
Hardcore solipsism is the only non-axiomatic philosophy there is (and thus, the only way to exist without blind faith), and it obviously doesn't lend itself as a base for a life as a functional human being - when nothing and noone can be rated anywhere near as real as my mind, then I'm free and entitled to treat everything and everyone as my toys to do with as I please... Occam's Razor would suggest they're all figments of my imagination, anyway. Rape, murder, etc. are perfectly justified, as long as these acts make my mental state in this moment the tiniest bit more fun/less boring when engaging in them. => "Do as I will shall be the whole of the law", which obviously is utter sociopathy.
To get any more socially constructive than this dreary baseline, (i.e., to show anyone else even the least bit of respect as a fellow being, let alone face them on equal ground) you must add unproven and unprovable assumptions made in a blind leap of faith.* Ethics always require faith - there's simply no way around this whatsoever.
At most, you could sticking with the naive forms of faith you develop as an infant of a few months age, and just never question these assumptions. (Which I actually think is what most people do.) But that way, you'd still live a life based on blind faith, you'd just be doing so by default, not by a conscious process of critical thought. Looking for an axiom that works best and then choosing to actively forsake all further doubt in it, treating it as subjectively true without any need of proof - that's rational blind faith, which I clearly find to be the best kind, myself.
* Note that faith isn't the same as religion/spirituality - there obviously are countless forms of faith that don't involve divine entities at all. Again, empirical science is a prime example of such a belief system.
(Blind) faith is a central and essential human trait, you simply cannot function in this world without it. Religion and spirituality are just one specific form this universal human trait can take.
Two cents
i was raised atheist... most of my family are Physicians... Very science logic based
some...experiences in my life... undeniable for me unbelievable for anyone else have changed me from atheist to having a deep knowledge that there is more to existence and afterlife than we have any ability to comprehend
i label myself as Christian bc sooo much easier in the Bible Belt and i do have some open thinking there not at all sure... not going to church tho... Sunday is the only day off i usually have so nope
i raised my children to think for themselves
~epi
i was raised atheist... most of my family are Physicians... Very science logic based
some...experiences in my life... undeniable for me unbelievable for anyone else have changed me from atheist to having a deep knowledge that there is more to existence and afterlife than we have any ability to comprehend
i label myself as Christian bc sooo much easier in the Bible Belt and i do have some open thinking there not at all sure... not going to church tho... Sunday is the only day off i usually have so nope
i raised my children to think for themselves
~epi
Last edited:
wildflowers
New member
I'd class myself as atheist or agnostic. I don't personally see any evidence for the existence of God (at least, the God of religious traditions with which I am familiar). Belief in one would not help me to makes sense of the world; instead it would create more issues to resolve, e.g. WHICH God., and what is that god actually doing.
I see IP's point that it is impossible to know for sure, but for me the simplest / most probable answer is lack of belief.
Organized religion certainly holds no spiritual appeal for me. I do see benefits in the sense of community it can provide.
Despite (or because) of my lack of belief, I find religion fascinating. I'm intrigued by how/why people do choose to believe, and what they get out of it. To add to the suggested readings here, I'd offer a book on the evangelical experience of belief and how they foster that.
I was particularly intrigued by the parallels the author drew between learning to talk to god and psychotherapy.
http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Talks-Back-Understanding/dp/0307277275
I see IP's point that it is impossible to know for sure, but for me the simplest / most probable answer is lack of belief.
Organized religion certainly holds no spiritual appeal for me. I do see benefits in the sense of community it can provide.
Despite (or because) of my lack of belief, I find religion fascinating. I'm intrigued by how/why people do choose to believe, and what they get out of it. To add to the suggested readings here, I'd offer a book on the evangelical experience of belief and how they foster that.
I was particularly intrigued by the parallels the author drew between learning to talk to god and psychotherapy.
http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Talks-Back-Understanding/dp/0307277275
I'm a huge believer in the motivation of doing good in order to make the world a better place, and because I want to be at peace with what I see in the mirror. My oldest brother remains a staunch Mormon and holds that without a God, Heaven, etc., people would have no rational motivation for doing good. I asked him, "When you do good, do you do it because you want the Heavenly throne God will reward you with, or do you do it because it makes you feel good to help your fellow man?" [grim chuckle ...] He declined to answer that question.
Whatever keeps the universe spinning, I don't think it could possibly be a "being" in the way that we understand it (where does it exist? what is its body? Does it have consciousness?) I don't see any evidence that it has anything at all to do with humans, cares especially for the individual lives of any creature, or is at all benign (or malignant for that matter.)
Belief in a supernatural being that cares about our individual lives seems to be a thing people use to make themselves feel better. There's zero evidence of its existence.
Belief in a supernatural being that cares about our individual lives seems to be a thing people use to make themselves feel better. There's zero evidence of its existence.
Because the only thing we can know for certain is that thought exists. (One step beyond Descartes' famous "cogito"... I do not even have proof that it actually is me doing this thinking.) Everything else requires going with unproven and unprovable assumptions (= blind faith). And yes, this includes empirical science - as it rests on axioms and assumptions, it absolutely is a system rooted in blind faith.
Hardcore solipsism is the only non-axiomatic philosophy there is (and thus, the only way to exist without blind faith), and it obviously doesn't lend itself as a base for a life as a functional human being - when nothing and noone can be rated anywhere near as real as my mind, then I'm free and entitled to treat everything and everyone as my toys to do with as I please... Occam's Razor would suggest they're all figments of my imagination, anyway. Rape, murder, etc. are perfectly justified, as long as these acts make my mental state in this moment the tiniest bit more fun/less boring when engaging in them. => "Do as I will shall be the whole of the law", which obviously is utter sociopathy.
To get any more socially constructive than this dreary baseline, (i.e., to show anyone else even the least bit of respect as a fellow being, let alone face them on equal ground) you must add unproven and unprovable assumptions made in a blind leap of faith.* Ethics always require faith - there's simply no way around this whatsoever.
At most, you could sticking with the naive forms of faith you develop as an infant of a few months age, and just never question these assumptions. (Which I actually think is what most people do.) But that way, you'd still live a life based on blind faith, you'd just be doing so by default, not by a conscious process of critical thought. Looking for an axiom that works best and then choosing to actively forsake all further doubt in it, treating it as subjectively true without any need of proof - that's rational blind faith, which I clearly find to be the best kind, myself.
* Note that faith isn't the same as religion/spirituality - there obviously are countless forms of faith that don't involve divine entities at all. Again, empirical science is a prime example of such a belief system.
(Blind) faith is a central and essential human trait, you simply cannot function in this world without it. Religion and spirituality are just one specific form this universal human trait can take.
Insane Mystic, while I appreciate your sentiments and thought process, I do not agree that believing "blindly" in a god popular 2000 years ago is the same thing as "faith" in science, or the scientific method.
Science is based on observable data. Yahwism and Jesusism is based on believing in magic.
I may have some "trust" in science "proving" things about our environment. Trust, based on performance, is not the same thing as blind faith.
I "believe" or trust the sun will come up tomorrow (or appear to come up) because it has come up for me every day of my life, and I have read that it has appeared for others as well for thousands of years. This is data, knowledge. Believing in the sun rising is "wisdom," or applied knowledge. I do not need to feel (much) anxiety about seeing the sun tomorrow. It's a pretty good bet I will be alive tomorrow, and the sun or earth won't explode overnight.
"Trust, but verify." We can't do that with god. Unless god talks directly to you. If you hear "his" or "her" or "their voice, the voice of god/dess, the promptings of the Universe, I am not going to argue with you. We don't have enough verifiable data on the reliability of god's voice coming to us.
Maybe it's just a voice in your head, and not from an entity. Maybe it's a powerful symbol or metaphor that comes along at just the right time to make you feel better.
One time soon after moving into a certain house my ex h and I could finally afford (after years of living close to the bone), with a better neighborhood, more room for my kids, big yard, etc., I was so grateful. I told the Buddha statue in my yard I was so thankful. Oddly I immediately got a response: "Just take care of it." Those words just came to me! This was pretty cool. It either came from Buddha, or the universe, or some hidden part of my brain that seemed to be outside of my conscious mind.
Re (from LoveBunny):
While I don't believe in a supernatural being that cares about our individual lives, and I agree that many/most of those who do believe seem to be engaging in wishful thinking, I would point out that if there's a God Who can't *physically* intervene but Who can *spiritually* interact with us, then some people might claim that spiritual feelings they experienced during meditation counts as evidence of God's existence (for them at least).
Since I don't *know* I'm not just a brain in a vat, I'm also inclined to recognize that what counts as evidence can be a somewhat subjective judgment call. (Unfortunately)
While I don't believe in a supernatural being that cares about our individual lives, and I agree that many/most of those who do believe seem to be engaging in wishful thinking, I would point out that if there's a God Who can't *physically* intervene but Who can *spiritually* interact with us, then some people might claim that spiritual feelings they experienced during meditation counts as evidence of God's existence (for them at least).
Since I don't *know* I'm not just a brain in a vat, I'm also inclined to recognize that what counts as evidence can be a somewhat subjective judgment call. (Unfortunately)
There is plenty of data of people taking a hallucinogenic drug and experiencing what feels like a divine presence.
There is a theory that religion is based on people following a charismatic leader who has had that experience, direct personal experience, of the divine. Religion is a way to come closer to that idea of divinity, without actually having experienced it.
Heck, there is a theory that we are human at all, with the consciousness we have, and the large brains, sense of time, ability and drive to create art, etc., because we were the first higher primates to get to the magic mushrooms.
One can also experience "the divine" in times of stress, after fasting, long periods of silence and prayer, vision quests, etc. Does that mean there really is a Man in "heaven" who loves us and directs our lives? Unlikely.
IMO, our lives and everything in it, the universe and all it contains, is either all god, or none of it is.
Of course, the powers that be have made hallucinogens, even marijuana, illegal, because it helps humans think out of the box. Early Church Fathers even made reading the Bible illegal for the masses, because, heaven forbid we interpret it on our own and think for ourselves about what god is, who Jesus was, why the Bible makes so little sense when you really read it. No, we need priests, popes and kings to tell us how to relate to the divine in prescribed ways, we need to know many interpretations of the Bible are heretical, so that we toe the line and remain good little serfs and slaves to the state, to the rich guys.
Why do you think the Old Testament shows the priests and Levites centralized Yahwist religion around the Temple in Jerusalem, and ordered poor farmers to tithe the best fruits of their labors to "Yahweh?" (As if God needed their wool, meat, grain and vegetables!) Because the Levites were the wealthy rulers and they didn't work, they got to eat and wear the best wool, for free. They ate and wore those sacrifices!
(BTW, Yahweh is the true name of the Jewish/Christian god, in case that is confusing. It's translated Lord in the Bible, because it's too sacred to say his actual name.)
There is a theory that religion is based on people following a charismatic leader who has had that experience, direct personal experience, of the divine. Religion is a way to come closer to that idea of divinity, without actually having experienced it.
Heck, there is a theory that we are human at all, with the consciousness we have, and the large brains, sense of time, ability and drive to create art, etc., because we were the first higher primates to get to the magic mushrooms.
One can also experience "the divine" in times of stress, after fasting, long periods of silence and prayer, vision quests, etc. Does that mean there really is a Man in "heaven" who loves us and directs our lives? Unlikely.
IMO, our lives and everything in it, the universe and all it contains, is either all god, or none of it is.
Of course, the powers that be have made hallucinogens, even marijuana, illegal, because it helps humans think out of the box. Early Church Fathers even made reading the Bible illegal for the masses, because, heaven forbid we interpret it on our own and think for ourselves about what god is, who Jesus was, why the Bible makes so little sense when you really read it. No, we need priests, popes and kings to tell us how to relate to the divine in prescribed ways, we need to know many interpretations of the Bible are heretical, so that we toe the line and remain good little serfs and slaves to the state, to the rich guys.
Why do you think the Old Testament shows the priests and Levites centralized Yahwist religion around the Temple in Jerusalem, and ordered poor farmers to tithe the best fruits of their labors to "Yahweh?" (As if God needed their wool, meat, grain and vegetables!) Because the Levites were the wealthy rulers and they didn't work, they got to eat and wear the best wool, for free. They ate and wore those sacrifices!
(BTW, Yahweh is the true name of the Jewish/Christian god, in case that is confusing. It's translated Lord in the Bible, because it's too sacred to say his actual name.)
InsaneMystic
Member
No, empirical science is based on the unproven and unprovable belief that there is an objective universe about which meaningful statements can be made by collating subjective sensory data.
That belief, in itself, is no more substantial than [name of deity X]ism; it's equally axiomatic and has to be accepted on blind faith alone, forgoing the search for proof. At their core foundation, there is no difference between religion and empirical science - if you don't accept their axioms, the whole system crumbles around you and becomes a uselessly speculative waste of time. That's just basic logic - it applies equally to Christianity as to nuclear physics, to Islam as to molecular biology, etc.pp.
The scientific method is, as the name says, just a method (albeit one that, given the human nature of subjectivity and limitation, may well be the best possible method for its intended goal within the scientific belief system). It's not the foundation of empirical science - that foundation, indeed, still is blind faith. Whether that faith is directed to a deity or the concept of an objective universe is nothing but personal subjective taste, and as we have no way to tell the objective truth about either, that personal preference is the only valid criterion deciding whether science or religion is "better" for any given individual.
My own experience proves that "science vs. religion" is a false dichotomy anyway - without faith in the divine, I could not hold faith in science; with faith in the divine as the core, bottom-rung axiom, I can stack faith in science on top of it just fine. Possibly the best example: I see evolution as simply one of the rules the divine creator set up for the universe when getting all creat-ey at the Big Bang moment. I'm both an evolutionist and a - non-Christian - creationist: there is no conflict between these two beliefs of mine whatsoever.
I'd tend to agree to that, too. Even if we ignore the obvious shams-for-profit (*cough*L. Ron Hubbard*cough*), organized religion relies on what was the experience of one founder (or a tiny number of them), and requires following their teachings unquestioningly. I don't have near enough trust in any human individual's capacity for objective truth to consider that a useful way to go about it.
Then again, there are lots of folks who have a much stronger need for affiliation with a group/community than a "weirdo loner" like me ever feels; I guess that for them, organized faith may well have its merits. I'd still be wary about the dangers of fundamentalist groupthink, which is dang hard to avoid in any kind of group organized around sharing beliefs (no matter if their beliefs are religious, political, philosophical, or whatever).
No, it's one of personal preference, not of semantics. As objective truth cannot be a relevant factor in it, subjective plausibility is the deciding factor in whether or not an axiom is to be accepted by someone or not.
If I were to believe in the "none of it is" side of that, I guess I'd just save myself the waste of any further time and kill myself right now, whereas the "all of it is" lets me live a reasonably happy and fulfilled life. So, from this one individual's point of view here, it's hardly just semantics - it's an existentially important difference.
I firmly reject the statement made by some atheists that pantheism were "practically a form of atheism", the same way that they keep rejecting the statement that atheism were "practically a form of Abrahamitic monotheism".