I don't define God — TimeLine

I believe in God. — TimeLine

God is moral excellence — TimeLine

God is moral excellence and you are striving to God - that is, striving to Moral Excellence or the platonic Form of Good. — TimeLine

What's with the capitalization? What does any of this mean??

When you look deep within yourself, do you see anything? Can you define time? We can semantically attach terms like love, kindness, good, patience, but who we are is an activity that only you would genuinely understand. — TimeLine

You're losing me already, fuckmesideways. Yes, I can define time, love, patience, iPhones, pewter cups, etc. What is your point?

People need to attach temporal and prescribe anthropomorphic qualities to God in order to make sense of something only faith can (and I understand the difficulty between faith and reason vis-a-vis their relationship with what could be established as justifiably accurate, but consider faith to be faith in yourself that what you feel is right). — TimeLine

I don't give a damn about what anybody feels is right. You either convince me through argument or not at all.

Alright, at this point, I really cannot proceed with addressing anything else that you've written to me. You MUST define what you hold love, rational autonomy, and moral excellence to be. If you can't do that, I can't discuss with you in any meaningful way. You are hip firing this discussion into oblivion when it doesn't have to. Please, tell me what those three things mean.

What's with the capitalization? What does any of this mean?? — Heister Eggcart

When you capitalise, you are attempting to convey a representation of accurate reality. If you don't know much about what morality is, then run along and play with your toys and stop wasting my time with one-liner questions because you have nothing else good to say.

You're losing me already, fuckmesideways. Yes, I can define time, love, patience, iPhones, pewter cups, etc. What is your point? — Heister Eggcart

That's just... :-|

Uhm, no, I asked whether you can define yourself.

I don't give a damn about what anybody feels is right. — Heister Eggcart

If you follow a religion, than you do.

Alright, at this point, I really cannot proceed with addressing anything else that you've written to me. You MUST define what you hold love, rational autonomy, and moral excellence to be. If you can't do that, I can't discuss with you in any meaningful way. You are hip firing this discussion into oblivion when it doesn't have to. Please, tell me what those three things mean — Heister Eggcart

Listen, I already have but you are just too slow on the uptake to understand. You just throw people questions and pretend that somehow makes you an inquisitive person.

Sorry buddy, but I have an essay due tomorrow and I have barely started, so either read or respond back with an actual response relating to what I say or go play on your iPhone and live out your life and let the adults have their discussion.

I don't understand what you are talking about. If the church concluded that the scientific account prevailed then they are not claiming a miracle, so there's nothing to discuss. It's only if the evidence appears to contradict established science that the possibility of a miracle would even be entertained. — andrewk

In this case the committee decided the evidence favoured a medical explanation. In other cases they decided the other way. I mentioned it to demonstrate that the science is taken into account. In light of the previous discussion your perplexity is perplexing.

wrong gods, according to the later Romans ;-)

I don't know why you've started talking about a case where the Vatican thought there was no miracle, as it has no relevance to the point in contention, which is the Vatican making claims that contradict science. In that case they made no claims that contradict science so I don't think anybody would be asking them for evidence.

The fact that the Vatican rejects some claims is no evidence at all that the accepted claims would meet scientific standards of proof. It's an easy way to build credibility to consider more cases than one intends to approve and reject some.

It's really very, very simple. If the Vatican wishes to make claims about purely spiritual things, they have no need to provide scientific evidence. If they make claims about scientific things, they need to meet scientific standards of proof. And they don't.

It's really very, very simple. If the Vatican wishes to make claims about purely spiritual things, they have no need to provide scientific evidence. If they make claims about scientific things, they need to meet scientific standards of proof. — andrewk

The point of this entire discussion was this: could there be 'evidence for the supernatural'? And that's a question to which most people - yourself conspicuously included - would answer a resounding 'no'. So I brought up the cases of apparent miraculous cures, with reference to a newspaper article, by a scientist, who was called to make a scientific judgement about an apparently miraculous cure.

So you then said they should subject all such cases to 'peer reviewed science journals'. I pointed out, look, they actually do get scientists to adjudicate these claims. In the case I was referring to, the Vatican itself declared that the evidence didn't support the claim that it was a 'miraculous cure'. So that is 'consulting scientists'. Don't you see the point? The whole issue revolves around making a judgement as to whether there was something that couldn't be explained scientifically about such and such a case. And in many of these cases, there was indeed such a factor. So in the case of 'evidence for something supernatural', then what more could you ask for? What could constitute 'evidence' of such a claim, if these cases don't constitute evidence?

What could constitute 'evidence' of such a claim, if these cases don't constitute evidence? — Wayfarer

Peer review and acceptance by a panel of independent scientists, not chosen by the Vatican, conducting investigations under terms set by them, not by the Vatican.

If you believe the evidence for these miracles meets that standard, why do you think none of them have been published in scientific or medical journals? If the evidence is there, there's a Nobel prize awaiting the first person that transcribes the evidence and sends it to a medical journal.

By the way, in your latest post you have reverted to the weaker claim of 'can't be explained scientifically'. I pointed out earlier that there's nothing surprising about something not being explained by science, since most things aren't, and hence lack of explanation is no reason to assume a supernatural explanation. You then said 'there's more to this than [lack of an explanation]'. Have you retreated from that claim? If not, what 'more' is there?

If you believe the evidence for these miracles meets that standard, why do you think none of them have been published in scientific or medical journals? — andrewk

This is truly pathetic. They would not seek to publish evidence of such cures in scientific journals because they're supernatural. Can't you see how what you're saying is scientism? They have their own criteria, which are quite strictly vetted, but you're saying, hey unless they can publish in Nature or Science...I mean, honestly, terminating this conversation now as it's obviously entirely useless, and goodnight.

No, if they're claiming the cures contradict science then they are making a claim about science. Can you not see that?

Far from being scientism, which is an attempt to colonise religion with science, what you are doing is the mirror image, trying to colonise science with religion - an activity which I hereby dub pietism.

I prescribe a dose of Stephen Jay Gould, specifically, reading about non-overlapping magisteria.

Of course I can see it. They are saying 'look here, there's something that science can't explain happening here.' They get scientists to come in and look at the evidence. That is what the story is about. Can you not see that?

So, Jacalyn Duffin was one such scientist, the case she reported on intrigued her, so she wrote a book on the basis of the Vatican archives, comprising more than 1,400 such cases. In the end she said that she remained atheist but that there was plainly something beyond science at work. I quote:

Though still an atheist, I believe in miracles - wondrous things that happen for which we can find no scientific explanation.

I think it's interesting that she can say that, and remain committed to atheism!

When the RC church is able to produce a case where an amputee has regrown a leg after prayers on their behalf, there will be reason for non-RC people to take these claims of miraculous healing seriously. — andrewk

The trouble with miracle claims is not that they are in a box marked religion but in a box marked quackery. They belong with the carnival snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century — andrewk

I think they are mistaken because:
(1) the claims are of exactly the kind one would expect if they were mistaken, ie never anything that directly contravenes science, like regrowing a leg; and
(2) they mock and insult all those people that have sincerely prayed for healing and have not received it - not what one would expect from a good God.

This is not a matter of pro vs anti religion. It's a matter of genuine spirituality vs witch-doctory. — andrewk

Which of them have been accepted by peer-reviewed scientific journals? — andrewk

So, what I'm getting is that you think 'spirituality' is OK - because it concerns 'inner truth', which is basically private and personal - whereas claims of miraculous cures are 'snake oil', they 'mock and insult sincere religious people', and they're 'witch doctory' rather than 'genuine spirituality'. That if any of these purported 'miracle cures' were to have happened, then they should be published in a peer-reviewed science journal, and those involved would then get a Nobel.

Is that about an accurate summation of your views?

Peer review and acceptance by a panel of independent scientists, not chosen by the Vatican, conducting investigations under terms set by them, not by the Vatican. — andrewk

Do you think many independent scientists would care to add peer-reviewing of Vatican evidence to their already busy schedules -- not to mention the likely bad PR that they would generate, no matter what they found?

There are millions of doctors around the world. One can find a doctor to say anything one wants if one looks hard enough. Just look at the ones that say immunisation is dangerous. — andrewk

The parade of physicians willing to whore themselves out to supplement manufacturers in television ads also speaks to this fact.

>:O

What is the actualization of humanity? — VagabondSpectre

The fulfillment of the lack inherent in the human condition, I'd say.

The difference being that religion doesn't tend to do ti via reason like humanism and social contract theory — VagabondSpectre

Check in with Aquinas, Tillich, Berdyaev, et. al., before you make that statement. Hell, even Whitehead, right?

[No, they have to be completely selfless, or they're nihilistic children, you say. - VagabondSpectre]

Certainly I never said that.
— Noble Dust

Vagabond: I can work with greed and we can achieve the ends we want by agreeing to cooperate because it's more profitable. Capitalism alleges to do this, and humanist/theistic morality does it too.

Noble Dust: As I said, this idea of working together for my sake is nothing more than a child manipulating it's parents or her friends to get what she wants for herself. It's childish. That's why I bring up altruism. True altruism, or true unconditional lovelays itself down for the other. This concept doesn't avail itself of survival, or creature comforts, or whatever. — VagabondSpectre

???

Because I don't base my moral system on God. Why is it necessary to have God in order to have morality? — VagabondSpectre

I guess I assumed atheism is a fundamental position for you, and so morality would stem from it. Is this not the case? If not, why do you spend such flatteringly large spaces of text responding to a clueless philosophical dilettante like myself? Because your atheism is passive, and not a fundamental element of your mode of thinking/interfacing w/the world (soft atheism)? But then, wouldn't you just not care? Your admonition earlier of "recommending" your form of atheism reeks to me of the fundamentalist forms of religion I'm all too familiar with. Perhaps I'm not quite the agnostic sheep you think me to be.

Yes, observation and reason are how. — VagabondSpectre

No, you said:

You can judge the quality of a moral position by finding out how well it actually promotes the values it sets out to promote - VagabondSpectre — VagabondSpectre

which suggests some sort of self-contained value system. What is that value system? It isn't observation and reason; those aren't value systems. Explain further.

Because happiness is the state that I want myself and others to be in, and freedom seems to be an essential way to get there. Freedom and happiness sum up the plethora of valuable things that life has to offer. — VagabondSpectre

Now here, I can sing it with you a little bit. Only because I think these words are so vacuous and vague. Happiness? Freedom? Of course I want those things, I want them as much as my 9 year old niece does. Now, what exactly those things are becomes harder to define the closer you attempt to look, not unlike wave particle duality, for instance...

I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is essentially that the well being of your loved one's is meaningless and unfulfilling to you. — VagabondSpectre

First of all, your appeal to emotion here is amusing, if nothing else, given the totality of the rest of your position. Anyway, what you're missing, and what I may have failed to adequately express is the teleology of "eternity". What meaning does anything at all have within the temporal? Don't talk to me about "finding 'my' happiness", or subjective truth vs. objective. Don't talk to me about my loved-ones' happiness. They'll most-likely live the 70-some years that I'll live, given luck. So? Do their lives have Meaning, capital M? How does meaning cohere within temporality? Does it? Does meaning cohere within eternality? Ask yourself this, don't just give me the stock fundamentalist-soft-atheist doorstep fodder.

But then, what's the point of altruism? — VagabondSpectre

Altruism coheres meaning outside of the temporal. Is that philosophical enough for you?

It seems like your altruism is yet another layer of greed which obscures your personal desire for some kind of spiritual connection with the infinite (whatever that might happen to be). Somehow altruism gets you there; it's an arbitrary means to the ultimate end of spiritual delight. Welcome to hedonism. — VagabondSpectre

I can't find any "coherence" here. Hedonism has to do with the flesh. So, the sort of "spiritual" hedonism you're speaking of (clearly not physical hedonism) can only be described as demonic within the realms of any classical teaching about spiritual realms (since you're speaking in those terms), (i.e."the holy" being a neutral, set apart experience that is equally demonic and divine). The problem is that spiritual altruism is not demonic in that sense; it's the opposite; it's divine. Altruism in it's pure form isn't demonic, so it can't be hedonistic; again, it's divine. In other words, you're talking about the spiritual realm in misused abstract terms. Altruism would only be hedonistic/demonic when it's used as a cloak; i.e. the examples I gave several pages ago...

Define "something higher" or define "ultimate concern" and we might begin to speak the same language. If your "something higher" is an indescribable ineffable infinite force of love, truth and theosophical ecstasy, naturally that's your ultimate concern. — VagabondSpectre

Try reframing this in a way that doesn't belittle the concepts you describe, and I'll think of a thoughtful response.

I have a vast and changing hierarchy of wants and values, but there is no ultimate value that renders all others meaningless by comparison. That's an effect reserved for only the most grandiose of ideologies. — VagabondSpectre

Does that vastness, does that ever-changing hierarchy influence how you respond to my posts on this forum? Since there is, of course, no ultimate value that renders all other values meaningless by comparison in your posts here, when debating philosophical matters. Surely such grandiose ideologies would not be expressed by one so deeply entrenched in reason and empirical evidence; surely one such philosopher would not take so much time to crush such a helpless continental philosopher as the one he fearlessly debates here.

The fulfillment of the lack inherent in the human condition, I'd say. — Noble Dust

What is the inherent lack in the human condition?

Check in with Aquinas, Tillich, Berdyaev, et. al., before you make that statement. Hell, even Whitehead, right? — Noble Dust

My point is that God and religion do not appropriately use reason to convince people to be moral. Offering someone eternal salvation as implicit incentive to behave morally, as religion is want to do, exploits their selfishness with a promise for which there is no reason to expect delivery. Humanism or social contract theory (generally, and as an example) don't make far out presumptions like heaven or hell or the existence of god in order to be persuasive, or to actually deliver on their earthly promises.

We could exhume and go through some arguments from each of your favorite theologians and religious philosophers, but unless any of them can use reason and logic to substantiate or quantify the supernatural, my objections will always be the same: no proof, no proof, no proof...

I guess I assumed atheism is a fundamental position for you, and so morality would stem from it. Is this not the case? If not, why do you spend such flatteringly large spaces of text responding to a clueless philosophical dilettante like myself? Because your atheism is passive, and not a fundamental element of your mode of thinking/interfacing w/the world (soft atheism)? But then, wouldn't you just not care? Your admonition earlier of "recommending" your form of atheism reeks to me of the fundamentalist forms of religion I'm all too familiar with. Perhaps I'm not quite the agnostic sheep you think me to be. — Noble Dust

Atheism is a fundamental lack of position. I cannot stress this enough.

My main goal in recommending atheism (recommending the discarding of fundamental positions on god) is to weaken the irrational foundation upholding antiquated and inequitable moral arguments. There are peripheral upshots, but that's the main one. For instance:

A preacher/pastor might argue: Without God, what reason is there to behave morally? If someone doesn't believe in God, what reason do they have to not rape my daughter? We can't trust them

What the above argument suggests is a complete lack of moral development based on empathy or common sense. It suggests that "God" and some accompanying lore and arbitrary specifics form a complete moral package which eliminates any need for rational thought as it pertains to genuine moral questions.

That said, atheism is not a fundamental position. It does mean that I don't have a fundamentally theistic position of any kind (the definition of atheism), and so outside of that I could be anything from a moral nihilist or relativist to a moral realist.

which suggests some sort of self-contained value system. What is that value system? It isn't observation and reason; those aren't value systems. Explain further. — Noble Dust

Actually the values are up for grabs per my description. First we agree on what values we want our morality to promote, and then we can construct rational arguments (including those based in observation) around those values.

If we don't share any of the same values, then we won't agree on what's moral. Luckily we both likely want to go on living, and in comfort, and also want other people in the world to go on living and also in comfort (or at least free from suffering). These are modest values admittedly, compared to eternal life in paradise for everyone (and avoiding eternal torture in hell) that is...

Now here, I can sing it with you a little bit. Only because I think these words are so vacuous and vague. Happiness? Freedom? Of course I want those things, I want them as much as my 9 year old niece does. Now, what exactly those things are becomes harder to define the closer you attempt to look, not unlike wave particle duality, for instance... — Noble Dust

Well these terms in a vacuum don't mean a whole lot, but once we get into real world examples they give way to tangible values. Happiness and freedom can be more precisely defined the more closely we look at examples of people without them. Like fundamental particles, observation collapses their wave property. Freedom to practice one's religion is an example of how this value takes physical shape in the real world. It's something whose effect we can measure.

First of all, your appeal to emotion here is amusing, if nothing else, given the totality of the rest of your position. Anyway, what you're missing, and what I may have failed to adequately express is the teleology of "eternity". What meaning does anything at all have within the temporal? Don't talk to me about "finding 'my' happiness", or subjective truth vs. objective. Don't talk to me about my loved-ones' happiness. They'll most-likely live the 70-some years that I'll live, given luck. So? Do their lives have Meaning, capital M? How does meaning cohere within temporality? Does it? Does meaning cohere within eternality? Ask yourself this, don't just give me the stock fundamentalist-soft-atheist doorstep fodder. — Noble Dust

I wasn't making an appeal to emotion, I was pointing out an implication of your own statements, and you've just reiterated it: to you everything is existentially meaningless (except altruism for some reason) because next to the infinite you view it has having infinitesimally small value. This includes the 70-some odd years of life that your loved ones will live.

The thing about meaning is that it only exists when something is around to interpret it. Me being the most relevant interpreter in this case (the meaning of my life) am luckily not infinite nor do I have access to the infinite. My life is filled with things of finite value, but I only know how to compare them to my life, which is also finite. When I weigh the value specific content in my life against the entirely of what is and has been (and hopefully will be) "my life", sometimes things prove to be highly worthwhile given they're not dwarfed by the infinite (which again, whatever it is or might be, I lack access to it and lack belief in it).

Altruism coheres meaning outside of the temporal. Is that philosophical enough for you? — Noble Dust

Absolutely not: spaghetti coheres monsters behind Uranus: butt how? (I realize the heights of my irreverence, but satire is the only form of poetry i know!).

I can't find any "coherence" here. Hedonism has to do with the flesh. So, the sort of "spiritual" hedonism you're speaking of (clearly not physical hedonism) can only be described as demonic within the realms of any classical teaching about spiritual realms (since you're speaking in those terms), (i.e."the holy" being a neutral, set apart experience that is equally demonic and divine). The problem is that spiritual altruism is not demonic in that sense; it's the opposite; it's divine. Altruism in it's pure form isn't demonic, so it can't be hedonistic; again, it's divine. In other words, you're talking about the spiritual realm in misused abstract terms. Altruism would only be hedonistic/demonic when it's used as a cloak; i.e. the examples I gave several pages ago... — Noble Dust

You don't think that the psychological comfort people get from thinking "they're closer to the infinite" counts as pleasure?

I really don't know where you're getting you're information about demons and holiness from though. Not from this world I reckon...

Does that vastness, does that ever-changing hierarchy influence how you respond to my posts on this forum? Since there is, of course, no ultimate value that renders all other values meaningless by comparison in your posts here, when debating philosophical matters. Surely such grandiose ideologies would not be expressed by one so deeply entrenched in reason and empirical evidence; surely one such philosopher would not take so much time to crush such a helpless continental philosopher as the one he fearlessly debates here. — Noble Dust

Sure my personal values influence how I respond to your posts, but I always try to let reason and accurate observation guide the content of what I do post. I do try to stick to the ideas as much as possible.

The brand of irreligion I preach isn't for everyone, sure. I advocate that people eschew superstitious beliefs in favor of beliefs grounded in observation and reason, morality included. Some people don't have the time or willingness to embark on that task though, so they can always just keep their religion and roll with the secular punches.

Try reframing this in a way that doesn't belittle the concepts you describe, and I'll think of a thoughtful response. — Noble Dust

O.K

I honestly believe that the main product which religion exports to it's consumers is psychological and emotional comfort, which comes in many forms. The emotional joy that a religious experience can bring is not too different from a sexual climax or a highly enjoyable piece of entertainment; the psychological comfort and reassurance it can bring is not to different from owning a gun with a legal permit (safety and moral absolution).

Irreligion doesn't offer eternal life or prepackaged moral beliefs, but it does keep a lot of the demonic brews on tap (which we all know taste the best).

Cheers!

Yes, but the lack of reciprocal admiration may itself be the impetus that motivates one to better themselves so as to attain reciprocal regard. If a person genuinely admires someone, they would find the will to improve themselves so that the person that they revere would respond back. Intimacy is merely a mutual expression of this reverence. — TimeLine

Here you seem to be equating reverence with admiration. I can see that there is a certain sense in which the two ideas could be said to meet, but this was not the sense of "reverence' I had in mind. 'Admiration' seems to incorporate the idea of approval. I revere nature, but it doesn't seem right to me to say that I admire it.

Also, I could be intimate (in the sense of sharing an authentically revealing honesty and liking and care) with someone I do not find predominately admirable; I could love someone "warts and all". So, I find I cannot agree that " a mutual expression of this reverence" is a very apt definition of intimacy.

In addition, notions of purity vis-a-vis holy often establish the Other, the impure and that is wrong and makes the positive change in people all the more harder. — TimeLine

I don't equate holiness with purity at all. The whole gamut from purity to impurity is holy in the sense in which I am thinking of it. When it comes to human actions, though; some of those we might call impure would not be expressions of a disposition of reverence or holiness (or love) on the part of the actor, that is the difference. I am thinking here of the kinds of acts that would generally be regarded as truly evil.

'Admiration' seems to incorporate the idea of approval. I revere nature, but it doesn't seem right to me to say that I admire it. — John

Again, I do not think you can revere something like nature, just like you can't revere your partner who may be a moron or your dog either because they don't respond back to you. Reverence may have an element of 'awe' which is perhaps why you mentioned nature, but it is more about a deep respect for someone that you value with high regard and that can only be directed to a person. That person is beautiful to you not because of how they look since beauty is relative, but you are in awe because of who they are, the choices that they make and that makes you a better person.

Also, I could be intimate (in the sense of sharing an authentically revealing honesty and liking and care) with someone I do not find predominately admirable; I could love someone "warts and all". So, I find I cannot agree that " a mutual expression of this reverence" is a very apt definition of intimacy. — John

One could still call two people in a relationship that play games with each other, lie to each other and compete with one another just to keep the relationship going as 'authentic' since they are mutually out of touch with reality, but authenticity is not that. The narcissism of our society enables people to validate their own existence and personal relationships through the approval of and communication to outsiders and that it just disturbing because your genuine feelings no longer matter.

If you appreciate that someone is showing you affection but does not respond back to you such as showing you that part of you that cannot see, or expose your flaws as much as provide you with a sense of wholeness and peace, the only person that you revere is yourself and you will slowly either go mad or eventually lose your soul. Reverence is directed toward someone outside of you and so when two people who can give love (someone who feels empathy and cares for the well being of all people and nature) and find that respect for themselves (by not lying and having principles that they adhere to etc), the mutual reverence between two such people falls into an infinite loop and they remain authentically connected, and they grow, make each other better, happier etc. They don't need validation and neither does their existence remain dormant or the same.

Science bases its theories and conclusions on observations; perceptions. On the other side dogmatic religions disallow reasoning, substituting 'faith' in place of reasoning. Defining and understanding faith is a tricky business.

We have met people with very deep convictions of sincere heart. When we listen to them, we get swayed by their ideas. But when we repeat the new understanding to others, not having as clarity of the bases of our borrowed new convictions, we do not remove the skepticism from our audience's mind/heart. This is how the concept of faith gets distorted. Can you imagine, how swayed the people who hears an exalted master of wisdom first hand would be? We exude our personality, our sincerity. Call this the aura if you like. But the followers do not have the same deep understanding of the principals. After a few generation, the preachers, failing to enlist many followers would demand blind obedience, calling it the faith.

Faith is not the same as blind obedience. And the true wisdom is not without the base of logic. But mind's perceptions are of higher level than the sensory perceptions. We all have gone through soul-searching. This is when our perceived concepts of life fail us, and we seek help of our deeper mind. And amazingly enough, answers do pop up. This the road to wisdom. But again, it is only the reasoning of higher order.

Thus science and healthy religion are not contradictory, but complementary.

I read this somewhere: 'Four ways to recreate life energies are, sleep, laughter, music and healthy religion.' Healthy religion does reduce our worries and cravings, giving us happiness.

The difference between an honest believer and an honest skeptic should be confined to the definitions of God and spirituality. Their ways of dealing with life should be quite honorable; they both should have learned tolerance and compassion.

Life is funny – isn’t it? I mean look around – here we are sitting on this little speck of dust – which is also a dung heap - literally – percolating from a fiery core – adrift in the infinite vastness of space. It’s a nice cozy little picture/place - isn’t it? I feel very secure about this scenario – how about you? I guess we are just lucky – huh? Are you paying attention? Life is not secure – at all - ever! Forget about the external universe for a moment. Look at yourself. You are a bag of water, walking around on sticks; composed of trillions of alien organisms, which you have to make agreements with – so we don’t kill each other. And to make matters worse – just one of these trillions can kill us. Now, is that a very secure and happy deal? No!

Let’s take a look again at the external universe. How long have we been observing our sun? I would say 200,000 years or so. Is that a long time? In relation to the theory of the big bang (which I think is speculation) – not very long. That is the ratio of 200,000 to 13,800,000,000 - which works out to be about 2 seconds in the totality of time. We have been great scientists for 2 blinks of an eye – very impressive. How much do we know about the characteristics and behavior of our sun? I would not say nothing, but I would not say very much. Let me skip to my main point – and stop belaboring our ignorance – which is – if the sun farts we will be incinerated. The sun doesn’t have to blow up, just a big solar flare. Well, you say, it hasn’t done that, yet. Your right; we are still here, but we only have been watching for the last 2 seconds. If the sun incinerates us will that affect my 401K and my next birthday party? Don’t worry; congress has passed a law prohibiting large solar flares. How smart are human beings – 2 seconds worth – smart?

My main point is that human beings are overwhelmingly insecure. From day one to our last dying breathe. There are no exceptions – all humans are insecure. Now I think the Buddha reached a level of equanimity that few attain. However, he got there on the engine of insecurity – desire. Insecurity is not a bad thing – it can be our friend – or it can be our worst nightmare – or what is most common – both. I feel insecure about these thoughts – please tell me (show me) I am wrong about our ubiquitous insecurity.

Thanks for your efforts, Timeline, but to be honest I've lost the thread of what this conversation was about beyond quibbling about different senses of 'reverence'.

Thanks for your efforts, Timeline, but to be honest I've lost the thread of what this conversation was about beyond quibbling about different senses of 'reverence'. — John

I agree John; there is a lot of quibbling in this thread. The original assertion was that religion will win in the end. I think religion will persist because humans are fundamentally insecure. It is a major characteristic of who we are. At the beginning of our evolution – when we first began to talk – we asked religious questions. Think about our ancestors back 100,000 years or more in a cave around a campfire; they asked what I call the three universal questions:

1- Who am I?
2- Where did I come from?
3- Where am I going?

As soon as humans were able to think and talk; they asked these questions. Some of the first answers were like – we came from Mother Earth and we go back. We are sons and daughters of the Sun and Moon. The big trees are our father and mother. A Turtle laid eggs on land under a full moon and we became human. There are a lot of variations, but they all address the 3 universal questions. These questions still face us today - except today the campfire is a keyboard and monitor.

Who were these people who gave answers to these questions? They were the first explorers, scientists, priests, shamans – philosophers. Philosophy holds the vision of who we are; where we came from and what we will become. These are the “experts” of their time – the authority figure. These authority figures are still with us – giving expert guidance to the 3 universal questions. We here are the religious leaders – experts - of today. We, philosophers, will be supplying answers ad infinitum. Society needs us and we will be around as long as humans exist. You know the definition of expert - right? X is an unknown quantity and spurt is a drip under pressure.

I don't know woodart; I think you are over-simplifying what is a very subtle and complex question, characterizing the human situation very narrowly and in an excessively generalized way.

I might put it like this: the trouble with God is one is always in the relationship for oneself. One loves God for what he does for you, rather than just because God is worthy or wonderful; the relationship is a validation of your own worth rather than just respect for other people.

It's the nature of the "salvation": belief and ritual are always a performance to rescued from their own ignomy.

Last weekend, I attended my father's baptism. He's been aligned with Christianity for about thirty years, but not felt in a position to fully commit to the faith until recently.

In the following sermon, the pastor was speaking about how people shouldn't be be giving charity or doing what's right to be seen by others, for a reward from other people. Yet, the sermon was also at pains to point out how, all along, God was seeing all the good works your are doing.

There a deep irony and inconsistency in the whole thing. Doing good works to be seen is not on... unless it happens to for the sight of God, to follow what God commands, to be seen to be Christian by God so one gets the reward of eternal life by God.

The very doctrine of Grace is entirely self-interested: one performs the act of accepting Jesus to become superior to any other sinner, to be seen by God to be better than others and gain the favour of God.

Christianity is not honest when it claims actions do not get you into heaven. There is, in fact, only one that does: accepting Jesus, the act of practicing Christianity.

We might say God does not understand love. In the face of the evil of sin, God doesn't just give forgiveness because he understands sinners are worthwhile, he demands a commitment (accepting Jesus) to supposedly show the life of a sinner really is worthwhile (as opposed those pagan sinners who lives aren't meaningful).

What God prescibes is a performance of hierarchy. We (supposedly) must take on the form of following Jesus, so that we are not worthless like everyone else (despite the fact they are no more or less inclined to be sinful). It's not about the worth of people even if they have sinned, it's about the worth of being a Christian as opposed to not.

Rather than loving the sinner, God loves themsleves ( "I'm the authority who makes some people worth while or not" and God's followers (as far as Grace goes) love that God rewards them if they perform the dance.

In this context, niether can see the others because they are ignorant of themselves: God does not realise his authority is the beginning and ending of meaning. His followers do not realise they are, of themselves, meaningful.

Most religions (and many philosophies) share this ignorance. Any postion which claims to rescue someone from "meaninglessness" does. Consumed by the desire to obtain meaning, people cannot see themselves, and in turn cannot see others. Love becomes lost in the obsession of rescuing oneself from their perceived meaninglessness.

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more posturing, >:O

I might put it like this: the trouble with God is one is always in the relationship for oneself. One loves God for what he does for you, rather than just because God is worthy or wonderful; the relationship is a validation of your own worth rather than just respect for other people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

To the extent that what you say relates to the previous discussion of reverence, I will say this: I have been advancing the idea that having a feeling, or disposition, of reverence does not necessarily, or in the sense I mean it, even characteristically, involve the idea or feeling that we are being loved in return.

I don't know woodart; I think you are over-simplifying what is a very subtle and complex question, characterizing the human situation very narrowly and in an excessively generalized way. — John

Ok John – do you mean humans are not insecure? That insecurity is not inherent in the human psyche? My statement is a generalization to all humans – I agree. However, please show me I am wrong about this generalization. Are humans secure in their biology? Humans are very fragile biologically. We are subject to disease, breaking bones, threats from other humans, threat of natural disaster, hunger, financial shortfall, psychological imbalance. The psychological threat can come from a spouse, child, friend, enemy, employer, government, law infractions; not to mention our own assessment of intellectual prowess. Is there much psychological intimidation going on in this board? When I drive on the freeway and someone suddenly cuts in front of me with a 10,000 pound truck – I feel insecure. Please tell me in simple terms how life is not insecure? Insecurity can be subtle and very complex, but I do not think we need to look in any of those areas to see how we all are threatened in common everyday life. For example – you go out to lunch and almost immediately - you know you have food poisoning. Has it ever happened to you? A restaurant worker wipes his ass and passes his bacteria on to you – it has happened to me on more than one occasion – regretfully.

Most humans never think about solar flares, earthquakes, volcanos or supernovas – but lions, tigers and bears do exist. And we are all aware of monsters under the bed or in the closets of our mind. We try to calm ourselves – mindfulness techniques work. I use mindfulness techniques everyday – why? Because I want to allay my fears – calm my mind – chase the boogeyman away. Do you know anyone that does not have boogeymen? Why do people go to the gym, eat organic food – go to church? Why are we here now on this board – because we know everything – and we just want to benevolently share it?

I think philosophers are absolutely necessary to civilization – I think we stick our fingers in the dike to hold the floodwaters back. Most people cannot even tell you how they feel, much less what they think. Why do people watch TV, listen to music, make art or write? We do things to distract ourselves, calm our minds, in additions to express and enhance our lives. The agents of religion are all around us – priests, scientists, witchdoctors, psychics, therapists – who are these people? They are all different brands of philosophers. There is an old question/joke that has been around forever – what is the oldest profession? The answer has always been prostitute. Well, ask yourself – don’t we need someone to first designate the illegality of the profession of prostitute? We first need the moralist to point the finger and say – whore! That moralist or conceiver of what is ethical - is a type of philosopher. In other words the oldest profession is philosopher – prostitute may be second. However, the sex worker is a type of therapist – they calm the nerves, body and mind – just like the philosopher.

We all live a dualistic – Walter Mitty – type of life. A man is a bank teller, but thinks about being a superhero, financial titan or whatever. Fantasy is a good thing – it is an escape from who we really are and the possibility of who we may become. We fantasize because we want out of a situation or we want to create a new one. You were just complaining of all the quibbling on this board about – reverence. You were unhappy about all the quibbling – I agreed with you. Unhappiness or dissatisfaction is a type of insecurity. We were both asking – please stop. Insecurity is not a bad thing – or at least it doesn’t have to be. Insecurity is in every corner of human existence – it is what drives religion – religion is one type of philosophy. I can see from your most recent posts that you are driven by religion and most assuredly – insecurity.

I think that since we are mortal some degree of fear is inevitable. Insecurity is a disposition; some people are more secure than others. Very often it has to do more with social conditioning
than it does with the bare fact of mortality.

Do you know anyone that does not have boogeymen? Why do people go to the gym, eat organic food – go to church? Why are we here now on this board – because we know everything – and we just want to benevolently share it? — woodart

I don't personally know anyone who fears nothing. I would say that people go to church (hopefully) on account of their faith ( and not out of fear). I would say they (hopefully) go to the gym and eat good food out of a healthy desire to be as healthy and optimally functioning. mentally and physically, as possible. I would say that we are all on this board for our own reasons. What is most important is to know why you are participating here; to know what you are seeking to gain from it.

You were just complaining of all the quibbling on this board about – reverence. You were unhappy about all the quibbling – I agreed with you. — woodart

Actually I wasn't complaining; I had been enjoying the exchange with Timeline. I was more explaining that I thought the conversation had devolved to become predominately an equivocation about the sense of 'reverence' and signalling that I did not have the time, energy or present inclination to participate in trying to unravel that.

I think that since we are mortal some degree of fear is inevitable. Insecurity is a disposition; some people are more secure than others. Very often it has to do more with social conditioning than it does with the bare fact of mortality. — John

John, I think you are funny – insecurity is experienced in all aspects of life – not just life and death situations. Insecurity is a disposition or emotion that can be triggered by social conditioning, social pressure, pressure from a broken water pipe or pressure we put on ourselves. For example, I go to the gym & eat organic because I want to be healthy – I don’t want to be fat & sick. The insecure thought of being fat & sick; drives me to eat right & exercise. Insecurity is a motivator/driver in all aspects of life.

I would say that people go to church (hopefully) on account of their faith ( and not out of fear). — John

Most people go to church to be told what to think. They want to be told what to think because they are too cowardly to think for themselves or too stupid to formulate coherent ideas or both. In addition, churches incite insecurity in their parishioners with hell fire and damnation. There is camaraderie and fellowship in church; but its first job is to dictate a religious formula. This is a prime example of the carrot and stick methodology. The social pressure to conform to a ridged system is enormous – talk about insecurity!

I would say that we are all on this board for our own reasons. What is most important is to know why you are participating here; to know what you are seeking to gain from it. — John

I am here to “know thyself”. I am here for the same reason I go to the gym – I want to strengthen my mental muscles. I am here for entertainment. I am here to see what other people think. I am here to learn what I can. I am here to refine my thinking. I am here to know my heart’s desire. I am here to observe wisdom in all its myriad shapes and sizes. I am here to continue building a coherent philosophy for myself and share what little I have to offer. I am here to contribute to civilization in that which I think best. I am here to discover new things. I am here for adventure. I am here to add my voice to the chorus of the human song. I am here to add my pennies to the bank of human knowledge.

Thanks for your efforts, Timeline, but to be honest I've lost the thread of what this conversation was about beyond quibbling about different senses of 'reverence'. — John

Actually I wasn't complaining; I had been enjoying the exchange with Timeline. I was more explaining that I thought the conversation had devolved to become predominately an equivocation about the sense of 'reverence' and signalling that I did not have the time, energy or present inclination to participate in trying to unravel that. — John

John you chose a word which I think most aptly describes you – equivocation. You have made several statements and then equivocated on them. You portray a sense of religious righteousness which reeks of insecurity, but then deny that it is everywhere. I wish you Godspeed and hope you discover what you are looking for.

The very doctrine of Grace is entirely self-interested: one performs the act of accepting Jesus to become superior to any other sinner, to be seen by God to be better than others and gain the favour of God. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a gross generalization. By definition, salvation means equality; it has nothing to do with superiority over others. Your point here is that classic psychologization of religion that's so painfully inaccurate in an atheistic ethos.