There is a lot more to ethics than learning how to respect others, there is also learning how to respect oneself. And with that comes learning how to think and be intelligent. Respect for others is dependent on knowing how to be reasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't regard self-directed actions to be particularly morally relevant. I will leave that to those who obsess over squelching the scourge of masturbation and the like.

Being moral requires self-control. No, you don't agree? Do you think that we are caused to be moral by others, not ourselves? If so, then wouldn't you see this as justification for a religion's oppressive actions? Or do we apprehend morality as self-control, and see a religion's oppressive actions as unjustified?

How can one adopt a middle ground on this position? Either morality comes from within, or it is caused by external forces. If it's the latter, then how are religions not justified in using force to create morality.

@Wayfarer
Thanks for bringing the video to my attention. I recently became acquainted with someone who is into restorative justice and social justice. And he is also a big fan of Rohr, specifically his book Falling Upward.

You're most welcome.

Christianity has a spotty moral record at best, and the Old Testament is likewise extremely morally spotty. I don't know why you would cede the entirety of ethical thought to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our modern notions of ethics arguably owe as much (if not moreso) to Enlightenment thinkers than to religious ones. — Arkady

When I say the JC tradition, I just don't mean Christianity or the Church, but the Western cannon in the broader sense. The way scientific materialism understands it, which is hardly at all, it is all based on illusory premisses, because even if it's not overtly Biblical, it still comes from a religious culture which sees the Universe as being the sign of a higher intelligence - exactly the premise which in their thinking, science has now undermined.

If you believe that the Universe is dumb matter, life is fluke, and human beings accidents of evolution, then what philosophy follows from that? Considering that the traditional idea of philosophy, the 'love of Wisdom' what does 'wisdom' comprise, for evolutionary materialism? It can only ever be a ruse. That's why I think Dennett's book on Darwin's Dangerous Idea is so important - it actually spells all that out. He shows quite clearly how everything previously understood as philosophy has been 'dissolved in the acid'. (Quite why he thinks this a good thing still eludes me, though.)

That's what I mean by 'undermining the JC tradition'. I don't mean necessarily defending the institutions. I too have to admit to being pretty dubious about the churches.

You bang on quite a bit about evolution's supposedly being a replacement for religion. I find that quite a dubious position... — Arkady

It's indubitable. Amongst the secular intelligentsia, such as your good self, the above views about the nature of the universe are the default view of 'how the Universe works'. That is not a religious view, actually it's an anti-religious view, but it occupies the place formerly occupied by religious views. As Pinker says in his essay on the subject 'the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. Though the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values, they certainly hem in the possibilities.'

Whereas, I don't believe science ought to be 'a worldview' as such. It's an attitude, a methodology, and a way of finding things out and getting things done. It's absolutely indispensable, but when it becomes the basis about beliefs about meaning, or lack thereof, then it segues into a quasi-religion. And it happens very easily.

I listened for 10 minutes to hear him finally skip Plotinus, Proclus, and other such thinkers to go straight to Constantine, who any scholar would only consider a bizarre and grossly misrepresented heretic who manipulated Christian ideologies for personal benefit. It just happened to benefit Christianity too, but that was only a side product.

It's always been a bit of a shock to conventional Christians who have accepted the creed as taught when they eventually realize they are actually polytheists. People like this man are then very comforting to them. I don't think he has any deeper message.

Being moral requires self-control. No, you don't agree? Do you think that we are caused to be moral by others, not ourselves? If so, then wouldn't you see this as justification for a religion's oppressive actions? Or do we apprehend morality as self-control, and see a religion's oppressive actions as unjustified?

How can one adopt a middle ground on this position? Either morality comes from within, or it is caused by external forces. If it's the latter, then how are religions not justified in using force to create morality. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I indicated above, even if morality requires an external force to impose it upon us (who, then, imposes it upon the imposers, I wonder?), ceding this control to organized religion would be a catastrophic mistake.

When I say the JC tradition, I just don't mean Christianity or the Church, but the Western cannon in the broader sense. — Wayfarer

So, by the Western canon, you are including secular works, both literary and philosophical, I presume?

The way scientific materialism understands it, which is hardly at all, it is all based on illusory premisses, because even if it's not overtly Biblical, it still comes from a religious culture which sees the Universe as being the sign of a higher intelligence - exactly the premise which in their thinking, science has now undermined.

Hmm...the universe as being the sign of a higher intelligence. Sounds a lot like a supposedly empirical confirmation of the existence of God.

If you believe that the Universe is dumb matter, life is fluke, and human beings accidents of evolution, then what philosophy follows from that? Considering that the traditional idea of philosophy, the 'love of Wisdom' what does 'wisdom' comprise, for evolutionary materialism? It can only ever be a ruse. That's why I think Dennett's book on Darwin's Dangerous Idea is so important - it actually spells all that out. He shows quite clearly how everything previously understood as philosophy has been 'dissolved in the acid'. (Quite why he thinks this a good thing still eludes me, though.)

I don't see that evolutionary "materialism" (by which I will here take to mean "naturalism" - the terms are not necessarily synonymous, and thus not interchangeable) takes away philosophy. Most philosophers are atheists, and yet seem to find plenty of work to occupy them (in any event, your above complaint is nothing more than yet another appeal to adverse consequences: even if evolutionary naturalism was a universal acid which dissolved everything it touched, and even if we regarded this as an unwanted outcome, it in no way shows that evolutionary naturalism is false).

That's what I mean by 'undermining the JC tradition'. I don't mean necessarily defending the institutions. I too have to admit to being pretty dubious about the churches.

Glad we are in agreement.

It's indubitable. Amongst the secular intelligentsia, such as your good self, the above views about the nature of the universe are the default view of 'how the Universe works'. That is not a religious view, actually it's an anti-religious view, but it occupies the place formerly occupied by religious views. As Pinker says in his essay on the subject 'the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. Though the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values, they certainly hem in the possibilities.'

Whereas, I don't believe science ought to be 'a worldview' as such. It's an attitude, a methodology, and a way of finding things out and getting things done. It's absolutely indispensable, but when it becomes the basis about beliefs about meaning, or lack thereof, then it segues into a quasi-religion. And it happens very easily.

Again, if evolutionary naturalism occupied the social niche formerly occupied by, say, Christianity, I would expect it would have at least a comparable degree of penetration in society. But evolutionary naturalism enjoys nothing of the sort. If this worldview is one held primarily the "secular intelligentsia", then it seems you needn't worry about this plague spreading to the population at large (indeed, in the United States, and increasingly so in some other developed nations, it is evolution which is denied, distorted, and rejected, not religion).

In any event, I believe that Pinker has a book-length exposition of the thesis propounded in that essay coming, so you will soon have another target-rich work by a well-known scientist against which to direct your ire. :D

As I indicated above, even if morality requires an external force to impose it upon us (who, then, imposes it upon the imposers, I wonder?), ceding this control to organized religion would be a catastrophic mistake. — Arkady

The answer to your question (who, then, imposes it upon the imposers, I wonder?), is inherent within your statement. Organized religions assume the existence of God, and for them, God is not just some imaginary super-being, God is very real. Therefore the real God imposes morality upon us.

Without the real God, there is nothing to impose morality upon the imposers. Morality is defined according to whatever the imposers are capable of convincing the imposed, is rational. But we know that morality cannot be defined as "rational" according to "rational" as defined by scientific principles, so the scientifically minded individual might not have the capacity to properly judge what is rational in relation to morality. It appears to be totally irrational, that if one believes truly in a real God, this real God will act to impose morality on this person.

The real catastrophic mistake then, is to be found in taking this control away from organized religion, which has inherent within it, the means for self-control, by recognizing the true, real existence of God, as the ultimate imposer. That is because all of those who believe that morality is imposed by an external force, must be forced to be moral according to that belief. Because they believe that they must be forced to be moral, then they must be forced to be moral. Therefore we must assume an external imposer, God, as that which will force these people to be moral.

Those who do not believe that morality is forced by an external force, who believe that morality comes from within, from an internal self-control, are in a completely distinct category. They seek reasons for self-control and morality in a completely different way from those who believe that they must be forced, by an external imposition, to be moral. If we all naturally, and instinctually believed that morality comes from within us, is not caused by an external force, and we apprehended the need to be moral, then perhaps we would not need the organized religion. But this is contrary to our instinctual selfishness. Furthermore, it is contrary to the ever-pervasive scientific way of thinking, which assumes external forces as the causes of things. So how can we convince everyone that morality is one's own responsibility, and that it must come from within oneself, as a strong desire (stronger than the desire for anything else) to be moral, without some sort of organized system? That's what organized religion is meant to be, the external force, which causes one to apprehend, and therefore believe, that morality must come from within.

So, by the Western canon, you are including secular works, both literary and philosophical, I presume? — Arkady

Criticism is not complaint. Please don't trivialise the issue. I have Pinker's book The Blank Slate and think it's a terrific book, and there are things about him I like, but not his materialist philosophy.

Actually I suppose I really meant the Western classical tradition - the Western Canon is a particular book.

As for the Universe being 'a sign of a higher intelligence'. - it's not 'empiricism' because it can't be subjected to the kinds of tests that empiricists recognise - detectable by instruments or by sensory perception. I don;t think you really understand the distinction at all. It seems like you insist that 'God' must be empirically detectable, so you can then say 'but where's the proof'? Then if I try and explain the classical theological view (as far as I understand it) you say 'obscurantism'. That's just like Dawkins! It's either literalistic creationism or sophistry, and dismissed in either case.

The fact that evolution is widely dismissed by Americans is the sign of something radically the matter with culture and society. But I think Dawkins, Coyne, and Dennett are as much to blame for that as their creationist opponents, because of their notion that 'science disproves anything like a higher intelligence'. Science does nothing of the sort, and the fact that they can't understand why, is a sign of their own shortcomings.

I have been aware of the Intelligent Design movement, but there are some things I can't stand about them - one being, they are all, right down to the last one, climate-change deniers. I think that speaks volumes about their general disregard for science and an overall absence of intellectual honesty.

But, that said, the efforts of the more literate ID writers, like Stephen Meyers, and the 'biological argument for design' have created an entire genre of literature, which is nothing at all like 'saddles on dinosaurs' creationism. Add to that, the fact that the so-called 'Neo-Darwinist' paradigm is also being revised all the time - there are many porous boundaries and blurry lines. But my overall view is, Darwinian theory is a biological theory of the origin of species, nothing less, but also nothing more. There are many philosophical questions which it is unfairly brought to bear on nowadays, which is at least partially why there is such widespread scepticism about evolutionary theory.

See http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com - an evolving alternative to either side. I very much like http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/stephen-talbott

The real catastrophic mistake then, is to be found in taking this control away from organized religion, which has inherent within it, the means for self-control, by recognizing the true, real existence of God, as the ultimate imposer — Metaphysician Undercover

You've forgotten The Spanish Inquisition? The persecution of the Cathars? I think the time of religious institutionalism has past. But in any case, the Buddhist model is very different to the Christion one - instead of a powerful father figure (Pope) controlling the levers of ecclesiastical power, which radiates out through a hub-and-spoke model, a networked movement, which is centripedal rather than centrifugal. But then, the whole basis of the religion is also different, Buddhism being grounded in insight in the nature of experience, rather than believing according to what you're told.

You've forgotten The Spanish Inquisition? The persecution of the Cathars? I think the time of religious institutionalism has past. But in any case, the Buddhist model is very different to the Christion one - instead of a powerful father figure (Pope) controlling the levers of ecclesiastical power, which radiates out through a hub-and-spoke model, a networked movement, which is centripedal rather than centrifugal. But then, the whole basis of the religion is also different, Buddhism being grounded in insight in the nature of experience, rather than believing according to what you're told. — Wayfarer

The problem is not religious institutionalism itself. But I think, as I tried to describe, the problem lies in the idea that, correct belief, and morality in general, is something which is caused to exist in a person from an external cause, rather than coming from the internal cause, which is desire or willingness. The former progresses along with the development of the scientific mind, which seeks external causes for things.

Belief itself comes from within, and though we discuss "beliefs", as if they were some sort of external objects which we pass around between us, these so-called beliefs are actually useless, or meaningless, unless they are actually believed. Believing only occurs willingly, so belief within an individual, cannot be enforced, or caused by external sources. Successful religious institutions aim at growing morality from within the individual, culturing and propagating good belief, not dictating it.

The problem has always been that beliefs are ultimately very personal things. Once you start to regiment them and dictate them the institutionalisation can't be too far behind. 'Orthodox' really means 'right belief' (or strictly speaking 'right worship' but it is very similar in meaning.)

The whole question of what, if anything, is known in religious modes of cognition is an interesting one. Of course atheism will insist there's nothing to be known. Religious authoritarians will generally say 'we know it, and you have to believe it'. But Richard Rohr's approach is more about finding the truth of spirituality through meditation. Of course, that requires openness to the possibility of there being something to be found; that too is belief of a kind.

The problem has always been that beliefs are ultimately very personal things. Once you start to regiment them and dictate them the institutionalisation can't be too far behind. 'Orthodox' really means 'right belief' (or strictly speaking 'right worship' but it is very similar in meaning.) — Wayfarer

There are two distinct aspects of "the institution", which are closely related in practise, but are separable in theory, such that an institution may focus more on one than on another. The one is to instill within the student beliefs which already exist in others. I'll call this dogmatic. The other is to instill within the student the sense of wonderment, or philosophy, which is the desire to understand, and create one's own beliefs. You can understand the former as a matter of dictating, and the latter as a matter of cultivating the inquisitiveness of the mind.

It might appear like it is necessary to give priority to the former. Children must learn the fundamental beliefs, numbers, letters, basic words, in order that they have a foundation, allowing them to go forward with principles of understanding, to expand their minds into the theoretical world. Then the theoretical world itself, can only be approached with a sound foundation. But I think the latter, which is a cultivating of the mind to be inquisitive, to be able to create beliefs, and to be properly receptive of existing beliefs is more fundamental, and therefore of priority. That is because even to accept into your mind, the existing dogma which is fed to you, one has to have been cultured in a particular way. But there's another particular way, which goes way back to Pyhrronism, skepticism, which is to thoroughly analyze each belief before it is accepted.

You'll notice that our society, with its institutions, is completely focused on advancing dogmas. Yes, we allow highly educated scientists to develop new theories, new ideas, but only after they are thoroughly educated in the existing scientific dogma. We have nothing within our educational institutions which aims at cultivating inquisitiveness. There are no provisions which would encourage one to question the existing beliefs, to be skeptical. In fact, as described by Wittgenstein, such skepticism is considered to be unreasonable. However, we know that it is possible to be mistaken in our beliefs. And unless we take this possibility seriously, we will not allow ourselves to reassess our beliefs, and find the mistakes which undoubtedly exist.

Let me relate this to the op now. What Rohr refers to as dualist thinking, the "I'm right and your wrong" type of thing, is derived from divisive dogmas. The feeling of "I'm right" is produced by being trained within a certain dogma, to accept as true, those beliefs. When two divergent dogmas meet in the form of two distinct individuals holding those beliefs, what Rohr describes, occurs.

But Rohr does not describe true individualist thinking, the way I do, as inquisitiveness, and skepticism. So what I would refer to as the individual separating oneself from the dogmas of society, in order to thoroughly examine the beliefs, Rohr assumes to be a type of unity. Where does Rohr derive this unity from? I see it as a true separation, a true individuation, whereas Rohr sees some form of unity here.

Where is this unity derived from? The only possible principle of unity here is the unknown, which becomes the source of the apophatic way of knowing. But there is no unity in unknowing. Unity comes about through shared principles, shared knowledge, so I think that this assumption of a fundamental unity is faulty. If an individual puts oneself into a fundamental position of unknowing, this requires one to necessarily isolate oneself. There is no fundamental unity which inherently lies there, it is pure isolation and unknowing. The unity only comes about if we assume a principle, something to unify us, and this may be God. But once we assume this, we assume something known, God, and the apprehended unity is the result of this assumption of knowledge, it is completely separate from the apophatic unknowing.

But in any case, the Buddhist model is very different to the Christion one - instead of a powerful father figure (Pope) controlling the levers of ecclesiastical power, which radiates out through a hub-and-spoke model, a networked movement, which is centripedal rather than centrifugal. But then, the whole basis of the religion is also different, Buddhism being grounded in insight in the nature of experience, rather than believing according to what you're told. — Wayfarer

But Richard Rohr's approach is more about finding the truth of spirituality through meditation. Of course, that requires openness to the possibility of there being something to be found; that too is belief of a kind. — Wayfarer

Let me question you on this point for a minute, Wayfarer. In your experience with Buddhism, meditation, and "the nature of experience", how do you relate to this separation between yourself and others? Suppose you meditate, and contemplate the nature of your own experience. Do you find yourself completely isolated from others, in need of assuming a principle of unity, in order to create a feeling of unity, as I describe? Or do you find that there is a principle of unity already inherent within this experience.

The other is to instill within the student the sense of wonderment, or philosophy, which is the desire to understand, and create one's own beliefs. You can understand the former as a matter of dictating, and the latter as a matter of cultivating the inquisitiveness of the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fair point, although I think that which one you ended up with, depended a great deal on the personality of the particular teacher and institution you were enrolled in. I have been reading accounts of the formative period of quantum physics. Rutherford comes across as exactly the kind of inspirational teacher and mentor you describe here. By contrast, a lot of religious education is rote learning and repetition. Not that it has to be, but it often is, and was.

You'll notice that our society, with its institutions, is completely focused on advancing dogmas. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all. I went to the University of Sydney, never encountered such an attitude. Again, it can happen anywhere, but not because of anything peculiar to 'our society'.

Where is this unity derived from? The only possible principle of unity here is the unknown, which becomes the source of the apophatic way of knowing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I naturally am inclined to agree but the reality of communicating such a subtle understanding requires that there is an institutional 'exoskeleton' to carry forward the idea. In fact that is very much what I think has been lost from Western religious institutions since the advent of modernity. It has become more and more externally focussed rather than an authentic 'encounter with the unknown'. The 'encounter with the unknown' is much more characteristic of modern spiritual movements than traditional Christianity, nowadays.

Suppose you meditate, and contemplate the nature of your own experience. Do you find yourself completely isolated from others, in need of assuming a principle of unity, in order to create a feeling of unity, as I describe? Or do you find that there is a principle of unity already inherent within this experience? — Metaphysician Undercover

The meditation I practice has no particular format. It's simply a matter of learning to sit still, being aware of the body-mind, and returning to the breath. It's not a matter of isolation, but really the complete opposite. There is a sense that the life and breath in me, is the same life and breath in every other being. The sense of separateness is precisely what is being dissolved by such a practice.

Not at all. I went to the University of Sydney, never encountered such an attitude. Again, it can happen anywhere, but not because of anything peculiar to 'our society'. — Wayfarer

What I am referring to is younger education, grade school through high school. This is the primary learning, where we learn our intellectual habits. We learn to accept the beliefs which are handed to us, by the authorities. We are not encouraged in the habits of being critical of the beliefs, nor are we encouraged to ask why. The educational institutions are structured such that there is consistency across the society and children are not exposed to competing beliefs, so that they might need to learn the skill of comparing and evaluating beliefs. The beliefs of the authorities are the only beliefs handed to us, so we learn to accept them as true. An environment in which there are competing beliefs in relation to fundamental issues, is one in which I think neither you nor I were exposed to as children. I agree, that in university we are encouraged to pursue our own directions, but that is only on top of the established foundation.

naturally am inclined to agree but the reality of communicating such a subtle understanding requires that there is an institutional 'exoskeleton' to carry forward the idea. In fact that is very much what I think has been lost from Western religious institutions since the advent of modernity. It has become more and more externally focussed rather than an authentic 'encounter with the unknown'. The 'encounter with the unknown' is much more characteristic of modern spiritual movements than traditional Christianity, nowadays. — Wayfarer

Alright, to "encounter the unknown", isn't it necessary to go beyond the institutional exoskeleton? Wouldn't this be exactly what such an encounter would consist of, being confronted with whatever it is beyond our common speak, where words fail us. If words apply here, it must be in an innovative way, or else it is not really the unknown. To describe this experience we reach for metaphor, using words in new and creative ways. \

So to make this voyage, to encounter the unknown, and I believe you are talking about the spiritual approach to the inner experience, isn't it necessary first, to as much as possible, release ourselves from all the constraints of the institutional exoskeleton? We cannot encounter the unknown while holding preconceptions. Perhaps after the encounter, when we wish to communicate our experiences, we must turn to that exoskeleton, but then it is used metaphorically. Isn't this exactly the way of Skepticism, to free ourselves of preconceptions, then knowing nothing, anything approached is the unknown, so we can proceed with the desire to learn and understand?

The meditation I practice has no particular format. It's simply a matter of learning to sit still, being aware of the body-mind, and returning to the breath. It's not a matter of isolation, but really the complete opposite. There is a sense that the life and breath in me, is the same life and breath in every other being. The sense of separateness is precisely what is being dissolved by such a practice. — Wayfarer

I haven't found this "complete opposite". In any meditation I've tried, I am overwhelmed with the sense of isolation. If sounds interfere, they are so distant. Every other being seems to be so distant, a simple voice is so far away. Where does the idea that "the life and breath in me, is the same life and breath in every other being" come from? I just can't find it in my inner experience, there is no other being there. Any other being is so distant, so separate.

In any meditation I've tried, I am overwhelmed with the sense of isolation. If sounds interfere, they are so distant. Every other being seems to be so distant, a simple voice is so far away. Where does the idea that "the life and breath in me, is the same life and breath in every other being" come from? — Metaphysician Undercover

Have you ever sought instruction in meditation?

So to make this voyage, to encounter the unknown, and I believe you are talking about the spiritual approach to the inner experience, isn't it necessary first, to as much as possible, release ourselves from all the constraints of the institutional exoskeleton? We cannot encounter the unknown while holding preconceptions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you recall which noted maverick 20th Century spiritual teacher used to say 'the known must cease for the unknown to be?' That was Krishnamurti, who was a major milestone in my development (such as it is). But reading Krishnamurti books and listening to Krishnamurti talks only went so far, in my experience.

Have you ever sought instruction in meditation? — Wayfarer

No, I have never had any formal instruction on meditation. But the question is, should I approach meditation with the preconceived idea that I am going to find within meditation, what some instructor tells me is there, and therefore I am looking for that particular thing, or should I approach it with a free mind, to find what is really there, within myself? In other words,, is instruction purely on the method of meditating, how to obtain the meditative state, and perhaps make the known cease to be known, or is instruction telling you what to look for, (that life and breath are the same for everyone); in which case, you haven't really rid yourself of the known.

you haven't really rid yourself of the known. — Metaphysician Undercover

Guilty as charged.

Christianity has a spotty moral record at best, and the Old Testament is likewise extremely morally spotty. I don't know why you would cede the entirety of ethical thought to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our modern notions of ethics arguably owe as much (if not moreso) to Enlightenment thinkers than to religious ones. — Arkady

And don't forget the recent philosophical revival of virtue ethics which finds its roots in ancient Greece. In fact, the Christian tradition incorporated virtue ethics with its seven sins and seven virtues - so they're not even original.

the Christian tradition incorporated virtue ethics with its seven sins and seven virtues - so they're not even original. — Benkei

There's a lot of truth in that. As I remarked to Arkady before, I have often thought that the Christian church in some ways appropriated the best of what they then described as 'pagan philosophy' only to metaphorically 'lock it in the Vatican archives' whereafter it could only be approached on their terms. I now think it's an uncharitable view, but that there's some truth in it.

What concerns me more, though, is the fact that because so much ethical theory became bound up with the Christian ethos, that in the rejection of religion, actual virtue is being rejected as well, and unknowingly.

There's a lot of truth in that. As I remarked to Arkady before, I have often thought that the Christian church in some ways appropriated the best of what they then described as 'pagan philosophy' only to metaphorically 'lock it in the Vatican archives' whereafter it could only be approached on their terms. I now think it's an uncharitable view, but that there's some truth in it.

What concerns me more, though, is the fact that because so much ethical theory became bound up with the Christian ethos, that in the rejection of religion, actual virtue is being rejected as well, and unknowingly. — Wayfarer

I think there's a lot to be learned from reading the musings of various Christian scholars about ethics but I've always rejected the institutionalisation of religion. For those things we should arrive at on our own (ethical convictions) are now edicts and dogma that are resistent to change when change is called for. It's a split many cannot consistently bridge. I still remember my religious roommate when we were discussing "love thy neighbour" in relation to our gay roommate. "I love him but he's going to hell". I never could wrap my mind around that statement.

Guilty as charged. — Wayfarer

Well, I admit it is impossible to do that in any absolute sense. We each do it in our own little way, but that's why subjectivity is so important, we can get completely different perspectives of the very same thing. From my perspective, each person stripped down to the bare essentials, is a separate oasis, a point of something, existence, in a world of nothing (perhaps its the Cartesian tradition which instills this in me). From your perspective, it appears like the person actually gets reduced to nothing, and one can only find one's own being, by being a part of something.

I still remember my religious roommate when we were discussing "love thy neighbour" in relation to our gay roommate. "I love him but he's going to hell". I never could wrap my mind around that statement. — Benkei

That's what's called forgiving. In Christianity forgiving is a very important aspect of how one approaches "the sinner". To forgive is to accept the fact, you cannot change the actions which a person is guilty of, right now, and this is the label which might be given to the person, what that person has become, and is designated as being "a ...", based on those actions. If that person has done wrong in your eyes, you have no choice but to accept this fact, as a fact, it cannot be changed, so you forgive, and love that person, as a person, like you would love anyone else. From this point, of forgiving a person's past behaviour, one can consider how the person is likely to behave in the future. If it is important to you or to others, that the person not behave in the same way again, then it is important to ensure that the person releases the desire to behave in this way. In Christianity, the attitude of forgiveness is the only reasonable approach to the sinner.

Ok. I'm just confused as to why I should forgive a sinner and God doesn't.

Apparently, God does forgive. I think that human forgiving is an extension of the divine forgiving. The "going to hell" statement is not well defined. I think Christianity was, in its formative years, working toward phasing out the concept of "hell". Hell is only for the ultimate sin, the sin of Satan.

From your perspective, it appears like the person actually gets reduced to nothing, and one can only find one's own being, by being a part of something. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not at all being 'reduced to nothing', it's simply seeing through your own stuff. It's also related to a sense of 'oneness with others' in the very simple sense of understanding that they are all people just like yourself, so overcoming your sense of separateness from them. Hard to put into words but very simple in practice.

It's not at all being 'reduced to nothing', it's simply seeing through your own stuff. — Wayfarer

This is where I can't get to, seeing through my own stuff. Suppose I want an extended period of meditation, so I tell my wife I'm going on the mountain for three days, don't expect me back until then. She says you'd better bring some food, but I don't want to bring any food, I don't want any "stuff" to interfere with my meditation. Anyway, it doesn't take long before I'm hungry, so I think about this stuff. What is this stuff, food? Why do I want it? Why do I suffer when I don't have it?

I assume you've had some training in meditation, so you may see this right away with breathing. What is breathing? Why must we breathe? What is this stuff we breathe in and out? As you described already, you see breathing in a way like it's something you have in common with others, so you make this breathing as a source of unity with others. And probably all our other dealings with stuff, like eating, you look at them in the same way, as evidence of unity.

But this is where I see things differently. I see activities like breathing and eating, as wanting to take stuff and bring it into my body, making it my very own. And that is a very selfish activity. This selfishness leaves me mystified. I want to feel, experience this unity which you refer to, but all I really feel is that suffering, that pain of hunger, which I interpret as the need for a selfish activity. How do I get beyond what I perceive as the selfishness of this activity, to apprehend it as an act of unity? That's the revelation I need.

That is why I enquired as to whether you had sought instruction in meditation. (And actually, the Buddhist word is not 'meditation' at all, but dhyana or zazen.)

But even to talk about it, triggers these associations of ideas and words. Here's me going off to the mountains. Three days! What does wife think? do I need food? What will happen? What does it mean? Will I be set upon by wild beasts? What is breathing? Why must I breathe.....

Meanwhile, nothing has actually happened. All that has really happened, is that you've sat down at your computer and confabulated a whole scene. What you've written is literally a 'stream of consciousness'. And actually that's a good step in the right direction. Many people will say that 'meditation' is stopping that, but you can't suppress that, or make it stop happening. What you can do is notice that you're doing it. And the best way to notice it is to sit still and watch it, simply be aware of the stream of words, images, feelings, associations, and memories, for 20 or 30 minutes. Do that every day, and you will notice.

Here is an easy guide to Zazen (Buddhist meditation) along Sōtō Zen guidelines.

Actually I have tried short sessions in the past, 10 or 15 minutes, I liked to make a short go, take a break and then another go. I might have done that for thirty minutes or an hour some times but most of that was probably break time There was a time when I tried to practise, but didn't make the effort to get onto a regular basis. I had a place where I liked to isolate myself. The reason I mentioned a long isolation, is because I was getting something from the short sessions and liked spending the time in isolation. The long isolation was something I wanted to try, as a challenge, to really commit myself. I wanted to force upon myself the food deprivation, to see how it would affect the meditative experience. Since I didn't ever try that particular experiment though, it is as you say, just a particular stream of consciousness, speculation.

I find that sitting, and focusing my mind, so as not to have any particular stream of thoughts, for a short period of time, probably around a minute, is not difficult. I think of it as a mental cleanse. The mind wants to think though, feelings and sensations are interferences, distractions, especially sounds. You can close your eyes but not your ears. Here's the odd thing. I always wanted to meditate in a totally isolated, and quiet place, I thought that it would be more conducive. And maybe that's why I see it as an isolating activity, because I isolated myself to practise, just like I isolate myself to practise a musical instrument, it's a sort of shyness. But since I quit trying to meditate, I've found that it's easier to get the desired mental affect in a very noisy, busy place. I suppose that's because I don't hear every little sound as a distraction, and a reminder. But maybe it's part of that feeling of unity you refer to.

Criticism is not complaint. Please don't trivialise the issue. I have Pinker's book The Blank Slate and think it's a terrific book, and there are things about him I like, but not his materialist philosophy. — Wayfarer

So strange, some of terms you take offense to, especially given that you seem to have fairly thick skin in general. I recall once, in the old place, I referred to God's "handiwork" in supposedly creating the heavens and the Earth, and you threw something of a fit over that term. Nothing about the word "complaint" was meant to trivialize your position, but it is a complaint nonetheless.

Quibbling over terminology aside, the fact remains that it was an appeal to consequences: Dennett's "universal acid" leaves no place for philosophy (in your view), and ergo must be false. But this doesn't follow.

Actually I suppose I really meant the Western classical tradition - the Western Canon is a particular book.

Ok. And again, this "classical tradition" would include secular works?

As for the Universe being 'a sign of a higher intelligence'. - it's not 'empiricism' because it can't be subjected to the kinds of tests that empiricists recognise - detectable by instruments or by sensory perception. I don;t think you really understand the distinction at all.

So: the universe is a sign of higher intelligence, but this is not an empirical demonstration of God's existence? Then I take it that no particular feature of the universe points to the existence of a creator? The mere fact that there is something rather than nothing (whatever at all that "something" may be) points to a creator?

It seems like you insist that 'God' must be empirically detectable, so you can then say 'but where's the proof'? Then if I try and explain the classical theological view (as far as I understand it) you say 'obscurantism'. That's just like Dawkins! It's either literalistic creationism or sophistry, and dismissed in either case.

No, I dismissed the likes of Eagleton and Tillich (at last as you've quoted them here; again, I've little familiarity with their primary works) as obscurantist. I'm not sure why they embody "classical theology": they seem to lean towards a sort of post-modern (or at least modern) theological sensibility, with perhaps a dash of Heidegger thrown in. When I think of "classical theology," I think of Aquinas, Augustine, Ockham, etc., not Tillich or Eagleton.

I will also say that, despite having asked many, many times, neither you nor anyone else has ever so much as provided a definition of the phrase "ground of all being." I asked you, and you threw more quotes at me (quotes which themselves didn't even contain a definition, but merely repeated the phrase in some form). Mongrel said its meaning was just obvious, and when I asked a follow-up question, I got no further response. This just reinforces my suspicion that such phrases are mere buzzwords, which are promulgated by those wishing to convey an air of theological sophistication, but which have no substantive meaning.

Edit: for the record, I don't accept a priori existential arguments for anything, God included.

The fact that evolution is widely dismissed by Americans is the sign of something radically the matter with culture and society.

I agree. It is the sign of an advanced, first-world industrial society which is overly saturated by religiosity, which is the cause of Americans' rejection of evolution.

But I think Dawkins, Coyne, and Dennett are as much to blame for that as their creationist opponents, because of their notion that 'science disproves anything like a higher intelligence'. Science does nothing of the sort, and the fact that they can't understand why, is a sign of their own shortcomings.

First, I will say that blaming three people whom most in the general public have probably never even heard of for the rejection of evolution by millions of people is ludicrous, especially since this rejection predated all of their births (the Scopes trial took place in 1925, for instance).

Secondly, Dawkins never says anything of the sort that science disproves God. You are again fighting a strawman. Dawkins believes that it is more likely than not that there is no God, on the evidence.

Thirdly, even if Dawkins et al overreach with the scope of the application of evolutionary theory, why would that lead to a widespread rejection of the core precepts of the theory? After all, one can believe in, say, the common descent of all life on Earth as it developed over 4 billion years, and yet reject the contention that evolution explains, for instance, the human moral sense, or that art has an adaptive explanation. (I will point out for the umpteenth time that Coyne himself has written about some of the more dubious overreaches of evolutionary theory as it pertains to evolutionary psychology, an inconvenient fact which you continue to assiduously ignore so that you can refer back to Coyne as a bogeyman emblematic of all you despise.)

I have been aware of the Intelligent Design movement, but there are some things I can't stand about them - one being, they are all, right down to the last one, climate-change deniers. I think that speaks volumes about their general disregard for science and an overall absence of intellectual honesty.

I wasn't aware that they are all climate change deniers, but that is interesting (almost as if the religious mindset can warp one's thinking...). However, of course, their stance on climate change doesn't bear upon the veracity (or lack thereof) of their arguments regarding evolution and creationism.

But, that said, the efforts of the more literate ID writers, like Stephen Meyers, and the 'biological argument for design' have created an entire genre of literature, which is nothing at all like 'saddles on dinosaurs' creationism. Add to that, the fact that the so-called 'Neo-Darwinist' paradigm is also being revised all the time - there are many porous boundaries and blurry lines. But my overall view is, Darwinian theory is a biological theory of the origin of species, nothing less, but also nothing more. There are many philosophical questions which it is unfairly brought to bear on nowadays, which is at least partially why there is such widespread scepticism about evolutionary theory.

You seem quite hung up on the issue of Biblical literalism. You do realize that, even prior to the advent of intelligent design creationism, there were old Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, etc?

I'm not sure what point you're making in saying that evolutionary theory is being revised all the time: while I agree that that is true, it is true of virtually every scientific theory.