Forum menu
I'm happy to give an example here to give an idea. Often there isn't one huge example but lots and lots of smaller ones that give a cumulative picture. I realise this opens me up to ridicule but this discussion is good so here goes.Fair enough, but experience is inherently personal, and so not something I would be inclined to talk about.
At one time I was arranging transport of food to displaced folks camps in Chechnya. We hadn't managed for a couple of weeks because of a total curfew so stocks were getting low. So I arranged a vehicle, got up very very early and spent a while praying that the road would be protected by angels and we would get through. I looked up and all I could see either side of the road was huge tall angels. I confess I nearly shat myself
I looked up again and this time what I saw was lampposts. However I had zero problems getting through all the check points that day and ours was the only vehicle that I saw out
So, you take your pick. You can take the view that we were protected or you can take the view that I saw lampposts and got lucky. Both viewpoints work and lots of stuff that happens in life is like that. There is no absolute proof but when you take a particular viewpoint it is consistently reinforced but could equally be refuted
Without wishing to probe too insensitively on a public forum where you might feel over-exposed, here's a thought.
Is it possible, do you suppose, that the quality of "profundity" is just something that the mind attaches to a thought or an experience, like a sort of reinforcement, for it's own purposes? That is to say, not a homogenous part of the thing itself, but a sort of added quality for the minds' own reason (which may not necessarily be benign, per se)?
(No answer required).
Has there not been a rise in the religious right in the States over the last couple of decades?
I don't think there has. Pat Robertson et al have been preaching their crap forever, it's not a new thing. In fact there seems to have been a decline in the number of Christians, and an increase in the number of atheists:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
There are some deplorable laws going through at the moment, but is the situation any worse than when Reagan was in power and the Moral Majority were on the case?
It's only 40 years since Roe vs Wade and yet now the states talking about outlawing abortion are outliers. I'd say it's getting better, overall.
[b]Stoatsbrother[/b], I would say that, while I believe in an absolute truth, I also believe - as I said yesterday at some point - that such a truth is better conceived as a cosmic rubber band than a rigid fence. In other words, anyone that fails to acknowledge the existential struggles faced by every human being, and respect people for who they are and where they are at in life's struggles, is someone that should either be invited to re-consider, or face rejection.
So, for example, the Islamo-fascism we see represented by Al-Qaeda and Daesh, is an appalling abuse of what it is to be human, and there is no other response to such groups but rejection. Wherever there is genuine intolerance, it needs to be combatted. But I guess I think that, if we understood - those of faith and those of no faith - that we stood on the same side, then we could more effectively identify and combat abuse and intolerance wherever and whenever it reared its head.
Beyond that, stoatsbrother, I just don't know. I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.
sometimes I think we are looking at exactly the same thing and simply reading it differently.
This is exactly it. In other words, truth is subjective.
To the atheists - does it matter if you know why the universe was created? It may matter to you, it may not.
Don't make me bring up the episode of Friends again.
I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.
.. as someone famous once said ...
You can take the view that we were protected or you can take the view that I saw lampposts and got lucky. Both viewpoints work and lots of stuff that happens in life is like that. There is no absolute proof but when you take a particular viewpoint it is consistently reinforced but could equally be refuted
The problem with any case of being protected by God and/angels is what about when people [i]are[/i] killed or injured? Was God absent?
A friend (an ordained doctor of theology) would say that about people who would pray for a parking space or for help finding their car keys - if God will intervene for such a trivial matter, why not for natural disasters?
@Mr Woppit, I indeed acknowledge that you could be right.
There may well be a purely psychological explanation to how and why I interpret experience the way I do, but think that two further points emerge:
1) I would never hold such experiences up as any sort of proof, seeing as they are so subjective, and
2) I don't think that a psychological/scientific explanation for something necessarily negates a spiritual impetus behind it.
As with leffeboy's post just above yours, I would maintain that there are two ways in which such experience might be taken, but fully admit that it is legitimate to identify only the scientific or psychological.
Yeahbut molgrips. You have just contradicted yourself. How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?
How do you define what is Good? (especially if there is no divine arbitrator)
The problem with any case of being protected by God and/angels is what about when people are killed or injured? Was God absent?
Don't know why God sometimes intervenes and sometimes doesn't but I don't think that because I don't know that means there isn't a God. The extension of that argument is that if God is always going to intervene then he is always going to intervene whether or not we like it and therefore we have no choice. Or if the choices are left to us then people will always get their parking space.
I don't know and it is in a big bundle of stuff that I don't know and which troubles me but I don't consider it proof of non-existance
So, for example, the Islamo-fascism we see represented by Al-Qaeda and Daesh, is an appalling abuse of what it is to be human
Flipping humanists! Always think they know better...
(As a humanist, I think I know better)
Molgrips quoted:
I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.
I understand (after frequenting many forums/speaking to others) that we (human population) by and large do, as individuals (and groups) pursue what is 'good and true'. Though many have fundamentally/radically differing ideas as to what is 'good and true'. <------------- "There'sya problem!' (Mythbusters voice)
Yeahbut molgrips. You have just contradicted yourself. How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?
How do you define what is Good? (especially if there is no divine arbitrator)
I would tweak what molgrips said by saying our [i]perception[/i] of truth is subjective.
And that being the case, what is good needs no external definition, and only our willingness to assent to it.
So, for example, the I am struck with awe by the implications of the golden ration, and so is the atheist mathematician. I am reminded of God because of it, and he or she is reminded of the incredible beauty of nature. It is then incumbent on both of us to respond by pursuing the good it has inspired, maybe by being an even more enthusiastic scientist, or a better poet, or a more diligent builder, or whatever.
Good has done its job, and we have done ours. And nobody got killed! 🙂
I find this thread interesting. Interesting for a few reasons really. I have had a belief in something most of my life although this has waxed and waned. I have had concerns with the role of religion in the formal structures in our country e.g. schools, government etc... I am not keen on organised religion or the politicisation of religion either.
My problem on STW in particular, is that I do have a particular issue with militant attitudes towards people with differing beliefs/philosophies. I cannot stand intolerant aggressive atheists or religious believers. In previous times, I would have been most aware of the forcefully religious but I have found that here that atheists have been almost vicious in the way they converse to and about people with belief and see it as the root of all evil - despite evidence to the contrary.
As a result, I don't really bother engaging much anymore. I don't think people's beliefs are much likely to change as a result of sharing views and experiences and frankly my conviction is not strong enough for me to defend or support.
How many religious threads do you need Saxon ?
Will you stop when its a holy trinity 😉
I do have a particular issue with militant attitudes towards people with differing beliefs/philosophies.
I know what you mean some folk tell me I will burn in hell if i disagree with them and dont do as it says in a book that they have faith ins ......imagine that level of intolerance eh.
I promise, Junkyard, that this will be my last for a while. I'm sure there is some news somewhere that I need to catch up on.
How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?
In a personal way, as SaxonRider, PerchyPanther and others have.
I don't think people's beliefs are much likely to change as a result of sharing views and experiences
I don't do this to try and change people's beliefs. I do it to try and get people to consider other people's points of view, and to be nice.
I would tweak what molgrips said by saying our perception of truth is subjective.
Well that's a fundamental question isn't it? Is there any such thing as absolute truth? Does such a concept even make sense?
Take quantum physics*. Is the cat alive or dead? Can it be both? Does it make any sense to define the health of the cat in this situation given that it is unknowable?
* Actually I should call myself out here because the cat thing is not meant to be a trite philosophical question along the lines of one-handed clapping and so on. It is simply a layman's illustration of a concept. I studied Quantum Physics for three years and this got a single mention at the end of a sentence. Quantum effects are described using hard maths. But you could start using the existence of these concepts to pull at the strings of what we see in our everyday lives, even though the actual equations do match up with what we see at our macroscopic level.
Of more use actually is the wave/particle thing. People boggle at this because it goes against common sense, but what use is common sense when describing something that's anything but common? It is simply not possible to determine if a photon is a wave or a particle without interacting with it. So if you don't interact - what is it?
If you look at the world through religious eyes, you see God - if through atheist eyes, you see simply unanswered scientific questions. So which is it?
Both and.
.. and what?
If you look at the world through religious eyes, you see God - if through atheist eyes, you see simply unanswered scientific questions. So which is it?
That reminds me of a book I read long ago (Anam Cara - a Book of Celtic Wisdom)
'Styles of Vision'
[url] http://swatura-anamcara.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/styles-of-vision.html [/url]
I may be skeptical and dismissive about many beliefs, but when we are talking about human natureI'll be the first to admit there is much 'truth and beauty' inspiring (and inspired by) 'spiritual' philosophy.
It's a rhetorical question btw, not looking for an answer. The point is that we can't know, so why not just go with your feelings?
But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth? Surely truth by definition is something absolute.
As Gandalf said (in another context admittedly) "Then it is no longer white"
But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth?
The definition of the word 'truth' is the issue.
Quoted this before, but it's relevant:
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
"But it was the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything," howled Loonquawl.
"Yes," said Deep Thought with the air of one who suffers fools gladly, "but what actually is it?"
A slow stupefied silence crept over the men as they stared at the computer and then at each other.
"Well, you know, it's just Everything ... Everything ..." offered Phouchg weakly.
Also this
The chances of finding out what's really going on in the universe are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied
But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth? Surely truth by definition is something absolute.
As Gandalf said (in another context admittedly) "Then it is no longer white"
Again, it's not often clear whether talking about either 'fact' or 'truth.'
(Mom). 'Jane, who stole a biscuit?'
(Jane) 'John did!! John stole a biscuit!
Might be the truth. Might not be. Follow the crumbs...
God is Truth
Crumbs becoming more difficult to follow. What if the crumbs lead all the way back to an early hominid eating a funky mushroom and worshipping a rock? What if the crumbs then lead from there to a a real-life proto-Life of Brian, where one couldn't hardly move for 'prophets'? What if .... God is The Crumbs! 😯
And that's fact!
Hoenir
[img] 
?resize=632%2C356[/img]
A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today.
I can't say I have any experience of being brought up atheist. My childhood in the late 50s was what would be considered normal. I went to Sunday school, eventually the big church at which point the vicar took my big sister to one side and suggested he didn't think I was ready yet. I think this had something to do with teaching her to wink during prayers. I really don't remember any of this, it made no impression on me at all. My sister was confirmed, I said I didn't want to be. By the time I was at grammar school I was quite definitely a non-believer. It simply isn't something I've ever felt the need for and I'm quite sure it's a construct. A way to explain the inexplicable.
I don't mind not knowing things. It doesn't bother me that I don't understand the origin of the universe or indeed of time. There will always be things we don't understand and that's interesting, not frightening.
Some see the Fibonacci number as a mathematical incidental. I, like many before me, see it as indicative of a divine reality.
It's stuff like this I don't understand. Why would you see it that way?
I may be skeptical and dismissive about many beliefs, but when we are talking about human natureI'll be the first to admit there is much 'truth and beauty' inspiring (and inspired by) 'spiritual' philosophy.
But what is spirituality? There are certain things that to me, even as an atheist, imply spirituality. Certainly art and in particular great music. But that's just a shorthand for the impact these things have on us, how they make us feel. In reality, there is nothing divine about these experiences.
Some see the Fibonacci number as a mathematical incidental. I, like many before me, see it as indicative of a divine reality.
See, immediately I ask what is 'divine'? In this context? I wonder, do you ask that same question? Which begs the next question - 'why'?
Then I ask - do so many of us (throughout history, slowly decreasing now) see nature as 'evidence' of a 'maker' - because it's our collective experience that we 'make' things? That we are 'made' (via father's sperm) and are born, so then figure rather simplistically that it must also be so with the Universe and all things - that something must be 'made'? That it must originate from a 'father'? (Or 'mother', for that matter)?
I have found that here that atheists have been almost vicious in the way they converse to and about people with belief and see it as the root of all evil
I'm pretty sure that's it's just 2 or 3 vicious people. I'd probably say overly blunt and lacking in empathy, rather than vicious, but they're very much Dawkins rather than Tyson or Shaha.
the vicar took my big sister to one side and suggested he didn't think I was ready yet. I think this had something to do with teaching her to wink during prayers. I really don't remember
(Begs forgiveness for laughing at imaginary typos)
[img] 
[/img]
#PointlessThreadsThatClearlyArentWorthBotheringWithOnSingletrackworld
This is one of them.
And that other one.
#PointlessThreadsThatClearlyArentWorthBotheringWithOnSingletrackworldThis is one of them.
And yet you still took the time to comment. Well done.
I know what you mean some folk tell me I will burn in hell if i disagree with them and dont do as it says in a book that they have faith ins ......imagine that level of intolerance eh.
The simple thing is there are atheist arseholes and religious arseholes. I am pretty comfortable you are an atheist who isn't of the arsehole variety and whatever the hell I am I hope I am not not an arsehole too.
But what is spirituality? There are certain things that to me, even as an atheist, imply spirituality. Certainly art and in particular great music. But that's just a shorthand for the impact these things have on us, how they make us feel. In reality, there is nothing divine about these experiences.
Yeah, words eh? Even the word 'divine'. I did put inverted commas around the word 'spiritual' - it seems to have so many definitions, and those definitions have subtly jostled for top place (for me) over the years.
'Spiritual' broadly implies (for me) an elevated/altered psychological state, and/or any work derived from such. Dunno about 'divine'? I've variously described diminutive antipodean pop stars or a suprisingly perfect pudding as 'divine'
Regarding the word 'spiritual' - I would certainly suggest that particular works and words carry extraordinary influence, variously inspired, often imparted via parable. Some music/certain art, some words, carry me away with their beauty and humanity.
Back to the OP - One of the great difficulties in discussing religion/spirituality is semantics. It seems we are reluctantly bogged down by varying definitions. Not like science, where definitions must be clear, unambiguous.
I don't do this to try and change people's beliefs. I do it to try and get people to consider other people's points of view, and to be nice.
That's because you are a good guy - certainly if your posts here are anything to go by. It's the dogmatic, dyed in the wool, narrow-minded arseholes that are the problem. They are exist to dominate and lambast and stamp on people they believe are different to themselves. It makes them feel better.
Thanks JJ 🙂
I know what you mean some folk tell me I will burn in hell if i disagree with them and dont do as it says in a book that they have faith ins ......imagine that level of intolerance eh.
You mean this one?
[img] 
[/img]
😉
I think the point I have got to in life is that I'm not sure I care if there is a supreme being/source of all realities or not; or whether humanity will or can understand the science behind all facets of our existence We make our own sense of our reality and meaning to life and most decent, good people have boiled this down to a few simple elements. Many cultures and faiths have built entire books around it. At STW it is simply Rule #1. Don't be a dick. I find it hard but I try every day to adhere to Rule #1. Let's just do that 😉
Rule #1. Don't be a dick.
Precisely what I think too. In fact all laws could be repealed and replaced by that one simple ideal.
As my all time hero Frank Zappa would have it "Whatever you have to do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder".
. They are exist to dominate and lambast and stamp on people they believe are different to themselves. It makes them feel better.
It takes a special type to be rude whilst moaning about folk being rude.
Oh the irony.
[img] 
[/img]
It takes a special type to be rude whilst moaning about folk being rude.
Oh the irony.
Sorry Junky. I think you have got completely the wrong end of the stick here. I am talking about the truly intolerant. You, correct me if I am wrong are quite happy for people to believe what they like or not as long as it does not impinge on you or your freedoms. This is totally reasonable. There are some who can't abide people being anything but as they are and put them down. That is a very different thing. To my mind the one thing it is not wrong to be intolerant of is intolerance.
Just for absolute clarity Junky. My point was not aimed at you. I find your position on atheism and religion articulated reasonably and well.