Indeed, I know many people who simply choose to not believe in god because they think it makes them more rational and even smarter than others who do.


That probably stems from many scientists choosing to not believe in god. Since scientists are 'smart people' , many just follow to derive this sense of self worth you speak of — StarsFromMemory

Good point. Actually I find the opposite true. Considering the study of, say, both theoretical physics and cognitive science, the overwhelming evidence suggests a purpose behind conscious existence.

It's the extreme polarization, from both sides, that's dangerous. The extremist views have clouded the mind's of many smart people.

Amazing question.. I believe I'd say that nothingness is necessary and the world contingent, but the contingent has solidity, so if a stick hits my head there seems to be a necessity there in feeling pain. Ultimately though the world is not necessary and we can enter into the necessary by following our Will. — Gregory

1. Explain what you mean by "nothingness is necessary" .

2. Explain what you mean by " we can enter into the necessary by following our Will."

Nothingness is neither eternal nor temporal. — Gregory

Is nothingness, or is somethingness, logically necessary?

My theory of everything is that time is only a measure in our heads, and that there is simply a finite number of motions that go back to the first pull of gravity. Nothing is behind it because there is just no motion. And why did the first motion happen then instead of before? Well again, time doesn't exist imo.

Well...I'm not sure how that relates to Salvation and the Metaphysical Will. It sounds like you are talking about yet another paradox relating to time. Of course, here's the classic contradiction of temporal time versus eternal time (timelessness):

Through his studies and data concerning NDE's, he believes that consciousness exists out there in some form as an informational data base. Meaning, he believes the mind is a receptor that filters EM fields of information/metaphysical information.

Hey Sam, I failed to mention that his notion of out-there relates to his studies, where brain activity flatten out, yet people apparently still had brain function/experiences... ?

Thank you Sam...I've listened to some other stuff from Greyson, and he is very articulate and well rounded. He talks about theoretical physics, classic philosophy, etc., and he tries to speak to the problems of consciousness from a world view.

Through his studies and data concerning NDE's, he believes that consciousness exists out there in some form as an informational data base. Meaning, he believes the mind is a receptor that filters EM fields of information/metaphysical information.

As an analogy, and I realize the circular argument of whether mathematics is out-there discovered from time to time by a receptive mind, or a purely invented human construct, but where are you with the mind-body/materialist problem?

The cause is greater than the effect. — Gregory

Or, perhaps the effect is greater than the cause. Of course, we might could try to define 'greater'.

In contemplating that the Will is a metaphysical impulse, that might precede intellect, the paradox would be in the so-called attempt to understand it. Meaning, our will to understand the will. Or, to understand that which we Will to understand.

In that instance, having is not as pleasing a thing afterall, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. :gasp:

Maybe the Will is some sort of a logical necessity nonetheless.

"A healthy mind can accept a paradox." Chesterton
:up:

Yet how can we deny and transcend the essence of what we are (i.e. will)?
However, is denial of the will really contradictory — jancanc

Gandhi said, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself [in the service of others].”

The paradox can relate to interconnectness. If it is true, that it is only through others we achieve our goals (life and relationships), then at least we know we are dependent on something outside of ourselves.

The Will acts similarly. One way of trying to define the Will would be like trying to defines one's identity. As self directed individuals, we depend on the metaphysical will in order to seek out and share in, happiness.

To transcend the Will would mean to allay one's fears. To subordinate intellect from the higher force of the Will. In that case, the will would take primacy over the intellect.

So when talking about the 'essence of who we are', those thoughts come to mind. Accordingly, when we talk about self (intention and/or identity), we have to include intrinsic fear. Is the notion or concept of salvation relative to fear? Do we fear others? Do we fear ourselves? Who am I? Those kinds of questions rear their heads...

In that context, we can indeed find truth in paradox or contradiction.

I don't think aletheist can get past that time is an illusion, or at least subordinate to change in nature.

Some theoretical physicists like Carlo Rovelli say that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges.

Just like time is just a fourth dimension and that there is nothing special about ‘now’; even ‘past’ and ‘future’ are not always well defined. Hence:

"There are parallels with thermodynamics and Bayesian probability theory, which both rely on the concept of entropy, and might therefore be used to argue that the flow of time is a subjective feature of the Universe, not an objective part of the physical description."

Is there another possibility to add to the list? — Gary Enfield

I think you should add Chaos theory to the list:

Systems have three modes of operation: - predictable (linear) - chaotic (nonlinear) - random (random)

Chaos appears between the predictable mode and the random mode. In a sense, chaos provides a wider envelope of motion for a system where we can't predict the motion but we know the motion won't go outside the envelope either. Also in chaotic systems we may see patterns that appear for a time and then new patterns emerge. Buildings sway in any wind. For small winds, the sway is pretty linear, pretty predictable. For larger winds, the sway becomes chaotic, not predictable but within the engineering limits (envelope of motion) of the building. For really large winds, the building may be driven beyond chaotic to random and then failure occurs and the building collapses.

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-chaos-not-random.929608/


Just a practical question though. In your OP when you use the word 'Thought' (concept), are you speaking of phenomena relative to cognition and what is in our stream of consciousness? In other words, part of the Mind-Body problem involves Intentionality.

Perceptions, beliefs, desires and intentions and many other “propositional attitudes” are mental states with intentionality. They are about or represent objects and states of affairs under a particular psychological mode or format. Those perceptions, beliefs, desires and intentions provide for a basic duality of the intentionality of the mental: the duality between mind-to-world and world-to-mind.

Everyone is making wonderful points keep them coming. This is a very emotional issue. When I read some of this I get a little emotional about it. There's a lot of existential angst hidden underneath a lot of this stuff.

As I've alluded to previously I certainly understand the psychological damage people have experienced...not to mention all those who've perished from religious wars throughout history...
.

I think much of it comes back to our ego (sin of pride). It's one thing being proud of your accomplishments, your family, so on and so forth but it's entirely another to have exaggerated self worth.

Don't take this the wrong way but you're sounding like part of the problem and not the solution. In other words, do two wrongs make a right?

You're just repeating the ad hominem...good job! The question was, why are atheists suing the government... resentment and anger most likely.

Thank you for that wonderfully lucid contribution IBB. In a similar fashion it's been my sense that a lot of those kinds of atheist's who rely on much of what you said, have not really studied the history of religion for themselves (much less the philosophy of same).

It seems to be more or less, at best, a regurgitation of some erroneous fundamentalist interpretation or something from kindergarden... .

Death and violence statistics are quite alarming in Eastern Asia/ Atheist Communist countries. That's a good question though, I can grab some statistics for you if you'd like.

In the meantime just a short sound bite:

"People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like - said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist.

In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers.[113]

Just from a common-sense perspective it certainly square's with the notion that people who have such Faith would be less inclined to be angry about same. But like I said I'll be happy to find some stats from both sides...good question.

I just noticed it here on this forum here lately... .

Yep. Me too. I see a lot of atheists trolling threads that are unrelated to EOG discourse. For instance, threads that are talking about phenomenology or metaphysics. It suggests some sort of axe to grind (not to mention resentment/anger issues).

Agreed. But aren't we more educated than that...shouldn't we know better? And if not, shame on me, you, or anyone else.

I've been down that road. But I didn't seek fellow enabler's who perpetuated the false paradigm's. Again, read my item #7.

But you would have to flush-out the meaning of 'lied'.

Yep. Primarily, it's called the danger's of Fundamentalism and/or extremism. Accordingly, extremism attacking extremism... .

Even odder that you find it odd that I gave Amen an AMEN on the comment. I saw it to be a nail being hit squarely on its head. — Frank Apisa

I was criticizing in this thread his approach, which it seems to me is masked aggresssion, which he is now calling tough love. — Coben

Look, Frank and I get it. It's really simple, it's called tough love. Why would we want to see someone/people suffer from this torment?

Coben, I really do appreciate your exhaustive analysis of the problem, however, I didn't really see where you tried to pinpoint an answer. Did I miss something there? please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've suggested 7 succinct ideas that might provide some fodder toward reconciliation of the problem. I even encouraged any form of emotional expression that might help viz purging this angry resentment towards Christianity. I also did this in order to shed light on some outdated group-think.

I think you are mixing apple and oranges. You are confusing emotions with discursive argumentation. For example, you seem to be saying that since hypothetically you don't believe in philosophical determinism, then one should argue instead for freedom of the will. Emotional intelligence and/or well being is a cognitive process, no?

The OP is alluding to a cognitive solution. And aside from my 7 suggestions which you seemed to ignore, I used tough love as an example of what a friend might say to another friend. I care that people are angry. If by flushing-out the resentment from, say, those 7 ideas, or some other hurtful experience, then that would be a start in the so-called healing process.

Now at the same time, we are adults; not babies. So sometimes we got to put our big-boy pants on and confront the emotion. Hence, many atheists are seemingly projecting some deep seeded, obscure negative emotion. My concern is if we wallow in the drama, nothing gets flushed out. Ever hear of the term analyze till you paralyze?

This is what I don't understand. If I'm an atheist, I would not be angry toward Christianity because it would have no effect on my emotional well being. So, my question is why are Atheists so resentful when it makes better sense to say 'I don't believe in God, therefore, I'm happy'?

Look I'm not trying to give flippant responses.

Here's the thing:

1. We are reasonably educated adults
2. The worn-out paradigms from grade school should no longer apply to those who have a reasonable amount of intellect.
3. There is no need to overthink emotions. Anger is anger. The question becomes what should one do with that anger.
4. How healthy is it for the individual to be angry and resentful over the same thing for years and years
5. Would education and the study of religion in all of its history, provide insight to the false paradigms that are considered antiquated and no longer apply.
6. In the information age of the 21st century are we not sophisticated enough to apply common sense when enterpreting Christian philosophy (the Bible's neither a physics book/medical science book).
7. Embrace interpretation errors, lost Gospel's, forbidden text's (Spinoza's) , translation errors, religion exclusivity (King James version excludes the book of Sirach; American Standard includes
same), metaphor, allegory, simile, euphemism, etc. etc..

Maybe I just don't understand the dynamic behind this interminable state of anger and resentment.

(Without getting into detail it is worth noting I am well aware -personally- of the dysfunction and abusive behavior coming from our religious institutions. Unfortunately, all of us have had experience with, or are exposed to, dysfunctional behavior including unexpected disappointment associated with many facets of the human condition.)

Maybe you should read the thread instead of troll it.

Otherwise , to answer your concern, it's called tough love.

atheist,

Let's get real. Are you angry about something? I mean dude, you've got to slay those Gilligan's!

Are you not more sophisticated than that? In other words, you judge people for not being good philosopher's, yet if you study the Philosophy of Religion, you would see that religious dogma is simply that, dogma.

If you were a true atheist, you would care less about this kind of stuff. But, apparently, your belief system is weak. Why can't you just say the EOG is false, rather than project your apparent frustration and/or vengefulness and/or resentment. Get over it.

You can't seem to let it go. Why do you have an interminable axe to grind? Go ahead, vent. But how about resolving the discrepancy... .

tic toc tic toc

Well at least you don't come across as angry with an axe to grind, regardless... .

As far as uninteresting, this is one reason I like to read from theoretical physics... whether it's from Dawkins, Einstein, or probably my favorite Paul Davies, it's all good. I take bits and pieces from all perspectives.

Though Dennett comes across as the stereotypical angry or resentful Atheist, or maybe he's just an angry man LOL. He doesn't get very good book reviews.

Thanks for sharing. I suppose life must be good when folks can find the time to get angry about such things.

Yep. I agree to the extend of separation of church and state, as being a good thing. Kind of a no-brainer, but did you know that countries like Syria do not separate politics from religion and vise versa?

This is one of the reasons they fight all the time.

But there again, one musn't dichotomize, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. In a free democracy, we must make laws that provide for such peaceful expression while at the same time discouraging extremism and discrimination. Easier said than done I know.

Good thought! Any practical examples ?

Yep x 2. I know it's hard to be objective all the time. (Actually it's kind of impossible.) We all can't be like the fun character of Dr. Spock. That's probably one reason why I'm somewhat fascinated with the distinctions between, say, indictive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Haha.

Yep. We're back to, perhaps, what Einstein posits concerning the Cosmic Religious Feeling(s):

https://www.thymindoman.com/einstein-on-the-cosmic-religious-feeling/

...just some inspiration from a man who was at best, an agnostic. My question is for the atheist; wouldn't agnosticism be a better alternative?

So I think it naturally follows that a Christian/ Atheist would appear angry more often than not when these ideologies are discussed. — Pinprick

Yep. And thanks for your contributions there. This stuff is real. It's deep and hurtful. Man made Religion can give the concept of God a bad name. People have been scarred for life in the abuses of same. But it doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

But guess what, we live in the information age now. Why can't we move past the old paradym's and be a little more sophisticated about our views (say, concerning EOG ?). There is no reason why we can't. Wouldn't that help with the anger issue?

When I see Ronald Reagan Jr. on TV with his infamous commercial where he say's ...'I'm an unabashed atheist not afraid of burning in hell', he comes across as having an axe to grind... . It's as if he's projecting his ignorance about something.

...Mmmmm… , well, thank you?

Look I'm just trying to spread the love. We've got to uncover these deep feelings of resentment, anger and so forth. Life is too short.. Even Einstein talked about religious feelings (positive feelings) in his observations and work in Cosmology... awareness is key. I mean, just read cognitive science/William James... .

To that end, I have yearly mantra's with my friends, some of which have included the concept of awareness. It was awesome. We would say...'hey, any awarezness today?' (We put a Z on it for fun.) We learned so much from it we extended it another year. (We would see things in business meetings where there were MIT grads who were so angry it more or less stifled their professional growth, as it were. And they seemingly were unaware.)

Then we had another one called 'engage with a smile', which is basically the law of attraction. It's amazing how many people I've met through that... . I work in a City and live in the country, (and play in a band part-time) so I have opportunities to interact with folks and try different things relative to human nature stuff. This year's mantra is Faith. It helps with worry and rumination. What does it mean to have faith... .

I know all this is somewhat idealistic. I'm not trying to fix the world-obviously I'm not qualified or capable-but I bring these questions into focus so that they can possibly go a long way in the discovery and uncovery of Being. We all have gifts; let's not limit ourselves with an overemphasis on negative energy. Discussion is good.

Sentient existence must exist for a reason.

I take that as acquiescence by silence? LOL

Per Frank, Schopenhauer:

The World as Will and Representation - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation

The World as Will & Representation, random book Review:

He picks up where he feels Kant left off, with the world as representation, which is to say mental picture. It is a biological fact that our brains receive a "feed" of sensory data through the nerves, and build a picture from it, which is the world we know. The problem then becomes, what, if anything, is the real world, the "thing in itself," apart from being represented in the mind? Space, time, and cause/effect thus become merely the "program" that our minds use to build this representation, and we have no reason to believe that they are valid outside of it. Even science cannot penetrate this veil.

Schopenhauer's answer to the nature of the thing in itself is actually quite simple: our will. The desires and emotions we experience play out in time but not in space, and are the inner mechanism of causality. They are the direct line to ultimate reality, which he characterizes as an infinite striving. Applying this then to the rest of nature, he sees it in animals, plants, magnetism, gravity, and energy itself. Like white light through a prism the blind and indivisible will manifests itself through space and time as every single phenomenon in the universe, yourself included. Multiplicity is thus seen as an illusion, and death becomes a moot point.

Ok great. Now let's come full circle to something we discussed earlier. I'm not understanding, so forgive my interpretations.

When I asked you about the paradox of time zones viz placing a phone call and/or simple time travel from west to east, you said that the measurement of time was arbitrary and a man-made invention.. This then would support the notion that there is an element of illusion (and of course paradox) there. And that is because we cannot relive the hours that we lost and vise versa.

This would suggest that change is more fundamental than time, no?

Getting past the distinction involves striving to understand not only the self as a unique manifestation of the Metaphysical Will, but the unlimited possibility from which this Metaphysical Will is a reduction. — Possibility

Yes. Indeed. One other component of metaphysical will in consciousness and/or nature would be intentionality. Have you explored that concept?

The metaphysical question would be something like: can we feel the phenomenal character of the intention in nature as a sensory experience?

Although a question like that would be a bit ambiguous, you would most certainly have to start with defining, what does it mean to have intention; what is our intention.

Yeah. I'm thinking about attacking some of the problem through education.

I know one could argue a slippery slope here, but having a class in public school that covers atheism, theism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I think would be very helpful.

For instance my beef about fundamentalism goes back to early church politics and the dismissal of 'lost Gospels' and other texts such as Spinoza's philosophy... . Let students make up their own minds. There's nothing wrong with vetting all.

At the same time it's worth noting the virtues (and vices) of Christian philosophy are practiced subconsciously. One virtue being the Golden rule.

Bonghits,

You seem like a good candidate for this question. I don't know if you're from the states here but even if you're not, you might could answer this question, since you're an atheist. Do you feel resentful that America has In God We Trust on our currency?

LOL good one Frank. I agree. Albeit he did ask the question for a reason. Although I didn't see the full clip ( edited video) I think the context was relative to atheism protesting against prayer, and other first amendment rights.

To that end, that's where the anger rears its head. Personally I think they should teach both in public school.

Nice! Actually, it's not just my perspective.

Citing Einstein as an authority on this issue is clueless or disingenuous - he wasn't an authority on sociology of psychology, and he's been dead for more than half a century.) — SophistiCat

Hi SC!

Thanks for your thoughts there. If you're saying science cannot multitask then I suppose that's also saying something about you. That's another paradigm buster.

And right now, relativity still holds, at least for now ! Haha