Wayfarer
Interested in your thoughts on the link between so-called "Enlightenment", Nausea, madness... — ZzzoneiroCosm

Let's say that Christianity is founded on an unequivocal 'is' - the belief that God exists. Christian culture absorbed (some would say appropriated) all that was noble in the so-called 'pagan philosophies' under the umbrella of the 'Church Triumphant', belief in which was compulsory, and questioning of which could be fatal. This unequivocal dogmatism then over centuries engendered its opposite - militant atheism. The 'death of God' also becomes associated with the dissolution of all certainty, the advent of nihilism, which Neitszche foretold. Doesn't the sense of nausea originate with that sense of the unreality of everything? That we're 'thrown' into a meaningless cosmos, from which we alone are obliged to create meaning where really there is none.

For countless ages the hot nebula whirled aimlessly through space. At length it began to take shape, the central mass threw off planets, the planets cooled, boiling seas and burning mountains heaved and tossed, from black masses of cloud hot sheets of rain deluged the barely solid crust. And now the first germ of life grew in the depths of the ocean, and developed rapidly in the fructifying warmth into vast forest trees, huge ferns springing from the damp mould, sea monsters breeding, fighting, devouring, and passing away. And from the monsters, as the play unfolded itself, Man was born, with the power of thought, the knowledge of good and evil, and the cruel thirst for worship. And Man saw that all is passing in this mad, monstrous world, that all is struggling to snatch, at any cost, a few brief moments of life before Death's inexorable decree. And Man said: `There is a hidden purpose, could we but fathom it, and the purpose is good; for we must reverence something, and in the visible world there is nothing worthy of reverence.' And Man stood aside from the struggle, resolving that God intended harmony to come out of chaos by human efforts. And when he followed the instincts which God had transmitted to him from his ancestry of beasts of prey, he called it Sin, and asked God to forgive him. But he doubted whether he could be justly forgiven, until he invented a divine Plan by which God's wrath was to have been appeased. And seeing the present was bad, he made it yet worse, that thereby the future might be better. And he gave God thanks for the strength that enabled him to forgo even the joys that were possible. And God smiled; and when he saw that Man had become perfect in renunciation and worship, he sent another sun through the sky, which crashed into Man's sun; and all returned again to nebula.

"`Yes,' he murmured, `it was a good play; I will have it performed again.'"

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. — Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship

How does the US struggle to recognize the distinction? The US is not an anti-religious state. Neither the Bible nor books by Richard Dawkins are banned in the US. — praxis

And yet the battle lines between secularism and religion are drawn, and the argument on both sides cites ‘separation of church and state’ as their basis. This is what I meant by ‘struggle’ - not an incapacity, but an unresolved and open debate.

:snicker:

Thanks for keeping my spirits up. Unfortunately, I won't be able to reciprocate in any way except by saying merci beaucoup!

I've learned a new English word: reciprocate. My day's made too! Gnight brother Agent! :yawn:

Doesn't the sense of nausea originate with that sense of the unreality of everything? That we're 'thrown' into a meaningless cosmos, from which we alone are obliged to create meaning where really there is none. — Wayfarer

But I'm sure that's just how we choose to look at it. We seem to find excitement, connection and opportunity in creating meaning. This is all anyone can do. You're still obliged to create meaning, even with a belief in transcendence of some kind. It is always an active process and we still have to identify which system or parts thereof resonate with us and why and then we have to embody our beliefs through our own judgements, choices and effort. Are we not kidding ourselves if we think there is an alternative to self-creation, regardless of the availability of ostensible 'ready to wear' belief systems?

Don't know about that. Most Australians seem embarrassed by public discussions of god or religion and we are largely secular. God was rarely mentioned in culture when I grew up and only now has a flicker of interest because of the culture wars and the fact that we've caught some of America's shallow Evangelical style beliefs. But this seems to be mainly a form of capitalism rebranded with a cross. — Tom Storm

I grew up in a Catholic community in Australia - God was rarely mentioned in public, only in personal and private arenas. I think it’s not so much that we’re largely secular, but that we’re publicly secular.

Politicians are exclusively public figures here. We’re embarrassed because religious beliefs are private - in the same way that we’re embarrassed by public discussions of sexual misconduct in our politicians. If your private influences become part of your public influence, that’s not on. Hence the ‘capitalism rebranded with a cross’. You don’t see that as a form of political corruption?

No, I don't think so. It's not a 'ready-to-wear belief system' that I'm referring to - that is something of a caricature. There will be those who can simply accept articles of faith and seem to be happy with that, but spiritual life often involves great doubt, great struggle and uncertainty. And as far as meaning is concerned, it is not simply an individual matter, something we only create. It's also given to us, or impressed on us.

I started out not wanting to accept anything on faith. That was the whole point of the 'spiritual experiences' that I thought I had had, or could have. The aim of meditative practice was to realise those states for oneself. But as life went on, it became apparent that such states are very elusive. And besides, in Zen Buddhism, there is the admonition never to seek out experiences or to attach importance to them. So I'm re-evaluating what it means to believe, and starting to see that it's not such a open-and-shut matter.

In my humble opinion, for what it's worth, faith-based belief in god(s) functions as a marker for goodness/benevolence i.e. if you're religious, 9 times outta 10, you'll be a virtuous person (likable, dependable, trustworthy, etc.). This outlook is nowhere as apparent as in American politics where politicians have to make it a point to make public their theism (real/sham). The unspoken rule seems to be: No belief in god(s), no votes!

Why do people think this way?

Perhaps belief in god(s) is strong (enough) evidence that one prefers to lead a moral life. Whether out of fear or out of genuine respect for ethics matters not.

The Gordian knot is that almost all religions, except perhaps Jainism & Buddhism, have an unfortunately distorted idea of right and wrong.

To sum it up,

1. Faith in God is a reliable indicator of how morally upright a person you are.

Unluckily

2. Belief in (a) particular god(s) entails endorsing a set of moral codes that may fall short of the mark (to err is human...)

We need to work on 2 is what I'm saying. This is an uphill task for sure. Why? For the simple reason that to attempt amendment to the ethics of a religion is to accuse God, no less, of error. Lamentable, we've painted ourselves into a corner.

And yet the battle lines between secularism and religion are drawn, and the argument on both sides cites ‘separation of church and state’ as their basis. This is what I meant by ‘struggle’ - not an incapacity, but an unresolved and open debate. — Possibility

You seemed to be claiming that the US struggles to recognize the difference between ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion. The separation of church and state facilitates both.

but spiritual life often involves great doubt, great struggle and uncertainty. — Wayfarer

This is what I mean. The spiritual life and nihilism both invite equal acts of creative vision and personal transformation galvanized by uncertainty. Between you and me I think the foundational benefits of transcendent belief systems are grossly overstated. :razz:

And as far as meaning is concerned, it is not simply an individual matter, something we only create. It's also given to us, or impressed on us. — Wayfarer

I agree that we inherit potentialities and frameworks (my 'ready to wear' comment was as much about our inherited language as it was about faith systems). But we are the ones that have to drive, interpret and enact them.

And besides, in Zen Buddhism, there is the admonition never to seek out experiences or to attach importance to them. So I'm re-evaluating what it means to believe, and starting to see that it's not such a open-and-shut matter. — Wayfarer

To me this resonates with finding meaning in meaninglessness which for me has an almost mystical resonance.

Can you say something more about your understanding of belief in this 'not such and open-and-shut case' context?

This is what I mean. The spiritual life and nihilism are both equal acts of creative vision and personal transformation galvanized by uncertainty. — Tom Storm

:chin:

Can you say something more about your understanding of belief in this 'not such and open-and-shut case' context? — Tom Storm

any comment on the Russell passage I quoted?

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. — Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship

Do you think this is true? What are the implications?

‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ — praxis

:up:

Freedom of religion vs. Freedom of thought.

Both guaranteed by the constitution from the little that I know.

In an weird sense, freedom of religion is pro-atheism for the simple reason that religions cancel each other out until we're left with atheism. This technique of playing one religion against another is quite popular.

My friend John, a Catholic priest with a mystical bent says that his Christian belief is one punctuated by terror and uncertainty and the knowledge that he has to make daily, often blind choices amidst chaos and suffering.

Do you think this is true? What are the implications? — Wayfarer

The implications are exciting for those of us not attached to transcendence. But the style here is flowery and emotive and trying to throw us off. I am not a follower of Richard Rorty per say (and God knows he has his critics), but for some years a couple of his quotes seem apropos.

"There is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves."

"Truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths.”

I think of his statements more as provocations, like Zen koans.

But how different in the end is Russell's world depicted here, to that of an idealist along the lines of, say, Bernardo Kastrup - wherein we are but brief flickering dissociated alters of great mind, a non interfering, essentially instinctive consciousness that isn't troubled over our suffering or our welfare and in the end we are reabsorbed into this overarching mind like plastic bottles being recycled at the reprocessing station?

That’s an interpretation - in the US particularly, it depends on your position in relation to religion. Realistically, the intention is to protect BOTH. — Possibility

Maybe I overstated my case. When I think of separation of church and state, I usually think of protecting the political system against a theocracy such as ISIS. I was pointing out that protection of religion is just as important. I understand that is what you are saying.

My friend John, a Catholic priest with a mystical bent says that his Christian belief is one punctuated by terror and uncertainty and the knowledge that he has to make daily, often blind choices amidst chaos and suffering. — Tom Storm

:grimace: John, good luck! You're gonna need it!

I would've gone all analytical on the matter of John's rather lamentable circumstances, but my gut instincts tell me he should look Fortuna straight in the eye and say in a calm voice "Oh yeah? Fair lady, two can play at that game!"

But how different in the end is Russell's world depicted here, to that of an idealist along the lines of, say, Bernardo Kastrup? — Tom Storm

Very different indeed, although I sense it is probably not useful to try and explain why.

Maybe I overstated my case. When I think of separation of church and state, I usually think of protecting the political system against a theocracy such as ISIS. I was pointing out that protection of religion is just as important. I understand that is you are saying. — T Clark

:up:

Very different indeed, although I sense it is probably not useful to try and explain why. — Wayfarer

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

The spiritual life and nihilism both invite equal acts of creative vision and personal transformation galvanized by uncertainty. — Tom Storm

The point is, for the nihilist, it doesn't make any difference. Put another way, for the nihilist, 'creative vision and personal transformation' are empty words, meaning nothing. And if that's not the case, why, they're not nihilist!

The point is, for the nihilist, it doesn't make any difference. Put another way, for the nihilist, 'creative vision and personal transformation' are empty words, meaning nothing. — Wayfarer

But I suspect that here you fail to understand in the same way that you say I don't understand - but for opposite reasons. :smile:

I suspect that here you fail to understand in the same way that you say I don't understand — Tom Storm

No. There's a real difference between nihilism and idealism. So equating the passage from Bertrand Russell's A Free Man's Worship with Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism only conveys that there is a real difference that you're not seeing.

It's actually the 'no true scotsman fallacy' - it means you are redefining what something means (here religion) in order to provide your own exculpatory definition. Like you seemed to do above. If I am wrong about that, apologies. — Tom Storm

Let's review.  Your definition was:

Religions are organized social groups based around rituals, community and transcendent beliefs. — Tom Storm

You did not cite a source, so I can only assume you invented it yourself.

I did not invent a definition for myself, instead pulled the definition of religion directly from google (which is about the most basic source one can find for definitions):

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

It is glaringly obvious who is redefining religion here.  No apologies necessary.

Anyways,  enough nonsense

Obviously all beliefs, from politics to religion begin as personal values, but they are practiced in community as public expressions of personal belief. Or are you going to argue somehow that the umpteen millions of people who belong to churches and synagogues and mosques and ashrams and who follow the teachings of their faith leaders in community groups don't count? — Tom Storm

You are confusing the culture of religion with religion proper.  The religious individual does something quite different than religious culture does, it is a qualitative difference.  The goal for the religious individual is to cultivate his faith. Whereas the purpose of religious culture is, among other things, to provide a place where a religious individual can go to cultivate his faith.
Now, the setting of religious culture is dependent upon the participation of religious individuals to merely exist, and it is not the only means by which a person can cultivate his faith.  If you strip away all the community groups, public expressions, and faith leaders, religion can continue to exist for the individual.   But take away the religious individual,  and there can be no religion amongst community groups, public expressions, faith leaders &c. 

What occurs for the religious person in the cultivation of faith is an exceedingly personal experience that is impossible to explicate in terms of religious culture.

You are confusing the culture of religion with religion proper.  The religious individual does something quite different than religious culture does — Merkwurdichliebe

Exactly, dr Strangelove! I don't partake in any cultural activities regarding my religion, other than directly expressing it. I don't worship, don't pray, don't go to heaven or hell, don't seek to converse, read no religious books, and don't go to church. I see good and bad as a reflection of the eternal gods in eternal heaven. Get to know life and the universe and you know the gods and heaven.

Exactly, dr Strangelove! I don't partake in any cultural activities regarding my religion, other than directly expressing it. I don't worship, don't pray, don't go to heaven or hell, don't seek to converse, read no religious books, and don't go to church. I see good and bad as a reflection of the eternal gods in eternal heaven. Get to know life and the universe and you know the gods and heaven. — Hillary

Very nice! Need I say more.

The point is, for the nihilist, it doesn't make any difference. — Wayfarer

Nihilism: Everything is meaningless or pointless

Life sans choice is pointless.

Choice sans life is meaningless.

Does nihilism conduct itself like a kamikaze (terminates all of philosophy and also itself in one fell swoop)?

Nihilism: Everything is meaningless or pointless

Life sans choice is pointless.

Choice sans life is meaningless.

Does nihilism conduct itself like a kamikaze (terminates all of philosophy and also itself in one fell swoop)? — Agent Smith

Nihilism requires its subordinate to either create himself by his own willpower or perish. Hence Nietzsche's emphasis on the will to power.

No. There's a real difference between nihilism and idealism. So equating the passage from Bertrand Russell's A Free Man's Worship with Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism only conveys that there is a real difference that you're not seeing. — Wayfarer

Maybe we can explore this another time but, no.

A person with a transcendent belief actually has to invent meaning and purpose in a way no different to a nihilist.

In fact Kastrup makes the point that he has no real idea why we are here and what purpose there is to life. He is personally riddled with insecurities and anxieties (which he often acknowledges). He has to build any sense of meaning from the ground up, just like any nihilist.

I don't accept that meaninglessness is anything but an invitation to construct personal meaning. It is not pointlessness. Humans make meaning out of anything. We can't help it, with or without god/s.

I have no idea what point we are debating. Remind me.

A person with a transcendent belief actually has to invent meaning and purpose in a way no different to a nihilist. — Tom Storm

From the nihilistic perspective, this is absolutely correct. Fortunately nihilism is not the end-all-be-all. From the idealist perspective, this is not the case by any means