Values are constitutional, they imply physical arrangements and health. You can say no evidence, they're stupid and wrong, but if your values are toxic, and theirs elixirs, I think I'll be "stupid", and "wrong" then.

Really all of the hatred and name calling is just control. Not reason, it's checking what one dare think and feel, precisely because they abuse themselves into their constitutions, and wish to do the same to you.

If you see criticism of belief as personal attack — S

I see criticism of believers as personal attack, which it is. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, go ahead. So far, all I have seen is you being rude about those who believe....

I see criticism of believers as personal attack, which it is. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, go ahead. So far, all I have seen is you being rude about those who believe.... — Pattern-chaser

If I have criticised believers, I have only done so on the basis of what they believe, and how they ascertain those beliefs. It is hardly a personal attack to claim that a large segment of the population ascertain certain religious beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith, which is just a different way of saying what I said originally.

You have turned a molehill into a mountain. It is you who is digressing away from the substance of my remarks, which you have avoided getting into, choosing instead to focus on your own outrage at the wording.

Bravo. I'm now going to be the bigger man and end my part in letting this tangent get out of control.

But there would be no point having a philosophical argument over whether reincarnation or resurrection is true, for example, as such dogmas are taken on faith, and are not supportable by philosophical argument. — Janus

Incorrect. Reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that I've been describing here.

There have been objections to that metaphysics in these forums. Those objections always end when the objector is asked what he means by "Objectively Real", "Objectively Existent", "Substantial", "Substantive", or "Actual".

Michael Ossipoff

And isn't that the whole point for aggressive Atheists? Abuse is the purpose, not the result, of their evangelistic Atheist zeal.

Some people have a need for proving themselves to be More-Scientific-Than-Thou. So, latch on to the Materialist dogma, and then, having cloaked oneself in that official holy mantle, one entitles oneself to abuse those who don't share that belief.

Michael Ossipoff

My theory is that at some point in human history this "lost in thought" experience became dominant enough that the loss of psychic connection with reality became problematic and we began looking for solutions, and religion was invented. Religion personalized reality in the form of a God to make it more relatable, and the focus became "getting back to God", or re-establishing the connection with reality. — Jake

This is self-contradictory. Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality.

But at least you seem to have moved from pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the core issue to that of being 'lost in thought', so we appear to be making progress.

We're neurologically distinct from other species in the development of what is known as the DMN (default mode network). It's believed to be the neurological basis of the self and is active when "lost in thought."



When this network is less active, such as in 'task-positive' activities, our sense of self diminishes ("re-establishing the connection with reality").

The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings.
— praxis

Actually, the Jehovah character seems remarkably similar to nature. He's both a gloriously beautiful giver of life, and an utterly ruthless killer of the innocent, just like the real world is. — Jake

Sounds like a bad after school special to me.

But we do have a tendency to think, speak and act so as to establish ourselves as separate from 'nature', even though, as you say, we are not. — Pattern-chaser

We think, speak and act as if we were separate from nature because that's how we experience our existence. And that's just the beginning. We experience ourselves as being separate from ourselves. Consider the expression "I am thinking XYZ". The thinker and the thought are experienced as two different things.

It's this perceived division within our own minds that allows us to argue with ourselves, to suffer. It's this perceived division within our own minds which is the well spring of religion. We feel divided within ourselves, and divided from everything around us. It's that experience of division which makes us feel isolated, alone and fearful (the fear is typically buried beneath a mountain of distractions) and causes some to try to "get back to god", that is, achieve a reunion with something larger than ourselves which feels like it might be at the heart of our existence.

All this division experience is generated by the nature of thought, by the way it works.

1) That's why the experience of division is universal, because thought is universally present in all humans.

2) That's why no philosophy is history has succeeded in overcoming the division experience, because all philosophies are made of thought, the source of the perceived division.

The best that philosophies can do is point to experiences outside of philosophy. That can be useful, but what typically happens is that users wind up worshiping the philosophy which is pointing to elsewhere, instead of what the philosophy is pointing to.

If we want to understand religion and most other human endeavors, the place to start is in understanding the nature of what we're all made of psychologically, the electro-chemical information medium we call thought. Everything else is basically just symptoms.

Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality. — praxis

Religion is not science. Religion is not about facts about reality. This common misconception condemns most discussions of religion on philosophy forums to irrelevance.

Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with reality.

Most human beings are not abstraction obsessed nerds such as ourselves. Many or most human beings will find it easier to fall in love with reality if it is presented in the form of a familiar human-like character. The evidence for this is that the God character has dominated many cultures around the world for thousands of years.

Falling in love with where we find ourselves is a rational act.

But at least you seem to have moved from pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the core issue to that of being 'lost in thought', so we appear to be making progress. — praxis

I'm sorry to report we are making no such progress. :smile:

Some people have a need for proving themselves to be More-Scientific-Than-Thou. So, latch on to the Materialist dogma, and then, having cloaked oneself in that official holy mantle, one entitles oneself to abuse those who don't share that belief — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, adamant atheism is little more than a replication of some of the worst properties of religion, posed as a revolutionary new product. However, most adamant atheists sincerely don't understand that what they're selling is no more rational than theism. And once they've staked out a big public ego position, they typically can't afford to understand.

It is hardly a personal attack to claim that a large segment of the population ascertain certain religious beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith — S

Agreed. And it's equally true that a large segment of the population clings to certain atheist beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith. Faith is the human condition, not the religious condition.

Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with reality. — Jake

Go ahead and say it the way you want to, Jake:

Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with God.

Do these non-religious "aspects" offer a unifying vision of life? — Janus

No, they just kind of make sense of some things like (possibly) suffering and why people abuse power.

This also raises the question of what counts as religious. — Janus

Religious positions attempt to explain the mysteries that science doesn't touch on. They are in essence pre-scientific answers that are easily reinterpreted by modern findings. To me, evolution doesn't cancel out divinity.

... I can't believe so many Christians believe that God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Have they ever taken biology?

Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful. — praxis

You might have just lead me to my next thread question. Thanks.

hence the function of religion to placate those who can't cope with the world as it is. — S

You know, I don't think that's all religion does. People are given ethical codes to live by through religion. And no, I'm not saying that people can't be moral without religion. Creating religions are fun too. Just to see what kind of stuff you can come up with.

It didn't go far enough, and it can't go far enough without ceasing to be Christianity. — S

Quite the LaVeyan statement. The reformers knew Christianity would have to change with time. Search semper reformanda in Google.

Therefore religion has no place in philosophy — Janus

I would agree. I wrote a paper in my intro to philosophy class about Thomas Aquinas being a theologian rather than a philosopher.

Go ahead and say it the way you want to, Jake:
Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with God. — praxis

You will find it exceedingly difficult to shoehorn me in to the God debate, should that be your goal here. :smile:

My claim would be that it doesn't really matter whether we call it "reality" or "God" or something else. What matters is what relationship we have with where we find ourselves.

God is about different things to different people. God is an impression, an inspiration, a role model, and so on. Religion is a belief system. It is not based in science, or on science, which is fine. God is not an Objective concept. Neither is religion. If it is important to you, or to anyone reading this, I (as a believer) am happy to agree with you that God and religion cannot be Objectively or scientifically justified. There is no such justification, as far as I know. And this does not devalue God or religion in the slightest. — Pattern-chaser

This is the same nonsense I read in the "Gender" Identity thread - that gender is subjective and means different things to different people. The problem is that no one is being consistent, which just means that concept ("god" or "gender") is meaningless. When there is no consistent definition of some term, then we have essentially defined that thing as nothing other than a "feeling".

I have inspirations, role models, experience wonder, etc., but I don't call those things "god". I call them "inspirations", "role models" and "wonder". All you and believers are doing here is taking a concept for which we already have an agreed-upon term and then making up your own term and using that instead for no reason other than to alleviate your own existential turmoil.

But that's ought, not is. What is is that we consider ourselves apart from the rest of nature. Why do we do this, I wonder? Is it wrong of us to think this way? If so, in what way? Perhaps there's a good reason for us to act this way, although I can't think of one. Let's not just dismiss this attitude; let's try to understand it. Maybe then we can reach useful and helpful conclusions.... — Pattern-chaser

We consider ourselves apart from nature because we consider ourselves as specially-created by some omnipotent entity. It's like our belief that Earth was the center of the universe at one point in our history. Science has shown in both cases that Earth is not special, and humans are not special. Earth is one planet among an uncountable number of start, galaxies and planets, hidden away in a distant corner of the universe. We are just one species out of millions on the evolutionary tree that continues to grow new branches while pruning others.

We are part of nature - as is everything (even a god, if one existed). We are all interconnected by causation. I have defined meaning/information as the relationship between cause and effect. Meaning surrounds us and is created every moment. We create meaning. Meaning/information is everywhere and seems to be the very substance of reality (or maybe it's processes/relationships).

Nature is the same as reality. There is only one, and if there are others and they do not interact in some way with ours, then what really is the point in wondering about them? God and heaven/hell would be in a causal relationship with our universe. What we do here has an effect on what happens in heaven/hell and vice versa. It is all interconnected and therefore one reality. There is no supernatural because that term implies that nature comes prior to the supernatural, when theists claim that God existed prior to the universe (inconsistent). The universe is seen as something temporary within this reality, whereas God and heaven/hell are eternal, but it is all still part of the same reality. Even though the universe may disappear, what happened here will have an effect on what happens for the rest of eternity. So the universe can't be temporary when its effects continue to influence eternal time. We can even say the same about ourselves. Even though our "existence" is "temporary", we continue to exist through the effects we had on the world - for the rest of eternity.

At the end of the book, Childhood's End, one of the Overlords is trying to comfort Rodricks when he begins to contemplate his death. The Overlord says to him in a affirming tone, "You existed." - as if to say, "Take comfort that you got to take part in this and that nothing, not even the infiniteness of time, can deny the truth of your existence." That is kind of what it is like for me. That is how I alleviate my existential fears. I look to truth - not delusion.

The problem is that no one is being consistent, which just means that concept ("god" or "gender") is meaningless. — Harry Hindu

I think it means that the concept - "God", in this case - is not well defined. Not undefined, but only not defined precisely. There are very many such concepts. Quality, beauty, consciousness, and so on. These terms are vague and ill-defined, but they are not meaningless. Our challenge is to learn how to deal with such concepts. ... Or we could take your route, and dismiss or ignore them. Maybe they'll just go away if we do...? :confused:

Reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that I've been describing here. — Michael Ossipoff

Lol. That's quite a mouthful. Do did you come up with that yourself?

Agreed. And it's equally true that a large segment of the population clings to certain atheist beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith. Faith is the human condition, not the religious condition. — Jake

Why do you feel the need to keep making these comparisons? You could create a discussion titled, "How do you feel about atheism?", and we could discuss it further. But this discussion is supposed to be about religion.

As for faith, it has an obvious link to religion, and a greater link to religion than atheism. Most people who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because of the lack of compelling evidence, yet most people believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning.

You know, I don't think that's all religion does. — MountainDwarf

I agree, but it's one of its functions.

People are given ethical codes to live by through religion. — MountainDwarf

Okay, but as you acknowledge, one doesn't need religion for that, so that function is redundant.

Quite the LaVeyan statement. The reformers knew Christianity would have to change with time. Search semper reformanda in Google. — MountainDwarf

It means, "The church must always be reformed", and although I think that that's a step in the right direction, I can't see how it could ever go far enough in that direction without losing its foundation. My disagreements with Christianity go right down to the roots.

I have inspirations, role models, experience wonder, etc., but I don't call those things "god". — Harry Hindu

Yes, it's weird, isn't it? A sort of nonsensical halfway house for people who don't believe in God, but who can't quite let go.

As for faith, it has an obvious link to religion, and a greater link to religion than atheism. — S

This misunderstanding is why I keep making the comparison.

I think it means that the concept - "God", in this case - is not well defined. Not undefined, but only not defined precisely. There are very many such concepts. Quality, beauty, consciousness, and so on. These terms are vague and ill-defined, but they are not meaningless. Our challenge is to learn how to deal with such concepts. ... Or we could take your route, and dismiss or ignore them. Maybe they'll just go away if we do...? :confused: — Pattern-chaser

Why shouldn't that kind of thing be dismissed? If I were to use the term "consciousness" to refer to my armchair, then it would likely get in the way of sensible discussion about consciousness. People would find it weird and would question why I don't just refer to my armchair with a more suitable term, like, say, "armchair". I would have to keep explaining myself all the time, as people would expect a different meaning. It would likely become a problem, and the people trying to have a serious discussion would probably find it annoying, and yes, they might well ignore me and want me to go away.

This is just another example of special treatment. In any other context, I doubt you would be cutting as much slack. But because it's talk about God, you're more sympathetic and lenient. Is that not a reflection of bias?

most people believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning. — S

But, given the lack of evidence, which you cite in the same post, it must be the case that "most people do not believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning." For there is no compelling evidence, as you observe, to believe or not. To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. To believe or disbelieve must be a faith position, given the lack of evidence.

The "erroneous reasoning" you refer to is to draw a conclusion when there is no basis for one. And it applies to all except agnostics, I think. :chin:

This misunderstanding is why I keep making the comparison. — Jake

So, if a survey was conducted about what word comes to mind when the word "faith" is mentioned, you don't think that words like "religion" or "God" would be very close to the top of the list? Would the word "atheism" even make the list?

There's a reason for that, don't you think?

As for faith, it has an obvious link to religion, and a greater link to religion than atheism. — S


This misunderstanding is why I keep making the comparison. — Jake

Yes, those links are of exactly the same strength as each other. :up:

Yes, those links are of exactly the same strength as each other. :up: — Pattern-chaser

No, they're quite clearly not, actually. Why is there a name for the reliance upon faith in religions thinking, fideism, yet atheism is just called atheism?