To those who believe there really is a life beyond, and that you do in this life has consequences, then it's no longer a hypothetical question but something of real importance. But then, if you interpret religions and philosophies in terms of how they make you feel, or whether they help you adapt to your circumstances, then of course whether you believe them or not is simply a matter of personal choice.

Yes. It's already just scientism and politics once we leave the guts and the heart. Religion is all too often (in my view) bad metaphysics, clumsy politics. We give a damn about it in the first place for "irrational" reasons. But then we obsess over possessing knowledge or science of something objective. All the same, we flee into the assertion that it's somehow non-empirical objective truth if challenged by the scientist or skeptic. But whence this objectivity? Belief and intuition, yes. We certainly believe things that others refuse to. But a science of such intuitions? propositions that cannot be falsified? It would maybe be better to hear some confessions of faith. "I can't prove X to you, but I believe X. And I can understand why maybe you don't." It's odd how religion tends to mimic the structure of its "destroyer" science. It confesses thereby its submission to the rational and the respectable. (I personally find an intersection of the religious and the rational/respectable that works for me. Others won't do this, in my view, because they want too much from religion. They don't want any freedom left over to be responsible for. Jesus must be science and philosophy and politics all at the same time, rather than that center of us that transcends them all.)

That's true. I don't want to insult believers. I do think it's acceptable to profess one's lack of belief though, and to reason from that -- at least in this context.

My whole interest in the question grew out of a rejection of organised religion, but what has happened in Western culture has changed my attitude. I think the publication of The God Delusion was a real turning point - Dawkins said that he hoped that he had written a book which would make people renounce their religious views. It had the exact opposite effect in my case. But, that said, I don't want to be considered a religious believer - rather I would like to argue the case on philosophical grounds.

It seems to me that the belief or intuition that life continues beyond this life, and that events here have a significance that cannot be expressed wholly in terms of the interests of the temporal self in what was, is or will be "here/ now", however that belief or intuition is conceived, can impart a dimension and species of meaning to life, that simply cannot be found in the standpoint of the human as radically finite.

Using religions or philosophies, as you suggest, just for comfort, is probably a losing strategy. I suspect that kind of mere non-radically-transformative faith (as opposed to real Faith) will dwindle to trivial insignificance in the face of prolonged extreme suffering or impending death.

For me it's a collision of the infinite and the radically finite. There's an intuition of something "deathless" , "eternal","primordial", radically at home (a son of "God"=reality), at the center of us which allows the "surface" to be radically finite. "The fire and the rose are one." (T S Eliot).

Iconoclasm clears away our idolatry and our insistence that religion be more than subjectivity. We crave to crystallize our mortal selves as imperishable authority or knowledge, hiding from the fire and the rose at the same time. Yet we only "fall" into this self-conscious alienation now and then. Quite often we are living in creative play and open-hearted-ness without giving it much thought. We aren't mortal when we love and play. Not for ourselves. That loveis the "eternity." I think this includes a healthy self-love, which is often (counter-productively) demonized by sacred or self-conscious altruism, a narcissism that doesn't recognize itself as such.

Just my 2 cents, of course. I just don't know if these marks and noises will "click" for others. Is there a universal human nature? Or does it just feel that way sometimes?

Relate that to OP. From the viewpoint of secular philosophy the Christian story can only be understood symbolically. But, talking in philosophical terms, the point is that the Christian belief in the resurrection obviously implies acceptance of a reality beyond the physical. This challenges our accepted understanding of the way things are on a lot of levels.

(Hence what I call 'handrail materialism' - the adoption of materialism as an attitude because it gives you something to hang onto in the face of uncertainty.)

I think a part of spirituality is the ability to live with the unknown - to accept the idea that nobody really knows about these matters, rather than accepting the implied authority of science (or scientism) in respect of something it really has no idea of.

But, talking in philosophical terms, the point is that the Christian belief in the resurrection obviously implies acceptance of a reality beyond the physical. This challenges our accepted understanding of the way things are on a lot of levels. — Wayfarer

True.

(Hence what I call 'handrail materialism' - the adoption of materialism as an attitude because it gives you something to hang onto in the face of uncertainty.) — Wayfarer

Here is where I think you conflate "commonsense" and materialism. Most of us humans don't traffic much with the "isms" of the intellectuals. You and I do, but we're strange like that. We want to give an account, possess and project knowledge. But most just live in the world and see their loved ones die and not come back. Call this induction or whatever, but we form that idea that death is final, provided with so very few counterexamples. Ask yourself whether you expect any of those you know to have died to knock on your door tonight? Does that make you a materialist? Would you believe a stranger who said he could fly, but only when no one was looking? I think it's just a psychological fact that we expect "more of the same." This is mostly in the "manifest image" and not in the ghostly realm of bloodless isms.

I think a part of spirituality is the ability to live with the unknown - to accept the idea that nobody really knows about these matters, rather than accepting the implied authority of science (or scientism) in respect of something it really has no idea of. — Wayfarer

I agree. Live with the unknown. Don't make it about knowledge. That's just the same, sad metaphysical quest for the magic word. And yet there are words that liberate us from magic words...ladders to be thrown away... Or that's how I see it..

I see what you are getting at. When I was first introduced to Zoroastrianism in my religion class I took in college, I was mind blown. It seemed that the Bible had stolen so much from bordering religions.

Nevertheless, Jesus does stand out in certain ways, I mean if he didn't we wouldn't be talking about him 2,000 years later.

To me fact or fiction the philosophical principles he taught are profound (maybe not unique, but profound). They are ethical ways of living and interacting with others.

Intuition and the subconscious is a powerful and a mysterious force.

This may be related but somewhat off topic, but I find it interesting how I say that my heart is a part of me, but I never would say I am my heart; it beats without my thought, and same with my breathing.

My point is that it seems interesting that we associate this idea of 'I' with a very limited perspective of the totality that we occupy (our bodies).

You can't just dismiss the possibility of a soul, by saying it seems to be highly unlikely. You may be one who lives your life making decisions based on what "seems" to be the case, but this is philosophy, and we don't take "seems to me" as justification for any such assertion. — Metaphysician Undercover

From a more naturalistic point of view, I can. There is no being 100% sure (even about this claim). Truth is estimated by likelihood.

And in fact we do use "seems to me" to be a preliminary for something. It seems to you that my argument is wrong. It does not seem this way to me.

For me, the problem is that the New Testament is a massively mixed message. The book itself contains both genius and madness. I keep reworking my own "synthesis" of this book with all of the many other great books out there.

I go back to it with these other "scriptures" in my hand. None of these scriptures are sacred or authoritative. That, to me, is the highest "thing" that any of them point at. But until that vision of nothing-is-sacred lights up in one's heart and mind, there is (as I see it) always the tendency of the self to glue itself to something outside, beyond, and above itself. But our "self" wants recognition, so what it glues itself to is above others too, whether they like it or not. This is bigger than religion proper. It's also everywhere in politics and philosophy. Personality itself is a violence. But accusing it for being that way is to indulge in the same sort of righteous violence. Instead one just has a vision of the game and can occasionally have a cup of lemonade far above the battlefield. That's the general structure that my personal reading of the N.T. recognizes: "Christ is the end of the law," where the "law" is also Stirner-the-ghostbuster's "sacred." Christ is (an envisioner and vision of) the end of that which is sacred and therefore alien to the living-dying self. The magic/hidden word is now incarnate, which is to say mortal flesh that participates in a universal re-framed as primordial (as deep as the genitals) rather than in the realm of embattled personality ("idolatry"). Theidea of the "primordial" can clearly function as an idol, but I have to splash around in the realm of symbols if I want to say anything at all.

I have a sense of humor about this. I have yet to meet anyone who sees it all that much along these lines --although I genuinely believe that I could have one hell of a cup of coffee and a walk by the river with Caspar (Stirner) in particular. Infinite jest.

I have a sense of humor about this. — Hoo

Thank heavens for small mercies. X-)

But our "self" wants recognition, so what it glues itself to is above others too, whether they like it or not.

I am sure 'religion' recognizes that, in fact, is built around it. Certainly, that insight is often corrupted and distorted, but it's present in the texts. 'He who saves his own life will lose it...'

You posed a lot in your comment, but I want to address one thing that I have a follow up question to: the Bible states that you should not worship false idols; however, churches these days are draped and covered in the most luxurious of riches and portray images of God and Jesus everywhere.

There are millions around the world that could use this wealth for food or shelter.

Do you think that this is a form of worshipping false idols?

Do you think that this is a form of worshipping false idols? — saw038

You didn't ask me, but more to the point, the luxuries of the church building for the Christian is better addressed by Mathew 6:19-21, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal... because where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

The edifice complex.

Many churches become real estate operations because as young churches they needed space to grow and run their programs. Then they matured, and over time tended to shrink. Now the congregation is small, and the needs of the building (which has become both an old "treasure" and a damned nuisance) soaks up most of their resources.

This is the American situation: many denominations, many congregations covering the same territory, and secularization has left many a church building empty. The state is not responsible in any way for the maintenance of churches.

There are solutions, but very, very few congregations are willing to merge. They don't want to share space, either, most of the time. Even churches in the same denomination have difficulty cooperating in minor ways, never mind nearby churches in different denominations.

Yes, it is a sort of idolatry.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think the idolatry is the key problem that I take serious issue with.

Thank heavens for small mercies. X-) — Wayfarer

I'm having fun. It's the "seriousness of a child at play." I really don't mean to offend, but perhaps the imp of the perverse grabs the steering wheel now and then. I'm a smiley joker in person.

I am sure 'religion' recognizes that, in fact, is built around it. Certainly, that insight is often corrupted and distorted, but it's present in the texts. 'He who saves his own life will lose it...' — Wayfarer

Indeed, religion speaks of the sinful ego and then builds institutions and dogma with which folks passionately identify with. This itself can be framed as the "seeking to save one's life." There's also the humorous fact that the maxim itself is just advice on how to (paradoxically) save one's life.
To me it's just a disaster to condemn rather than sublimate egoism. In Christianity we supposedly have the "man-god" to imitate, who said that he was the way, the life, the truth, etc. If the incarnation isn't personal and grand, then what's it all about? Conservative politics? Kneeling to an idea? (But like I said, I'm having fun. This is the place to let it all hang out..)

By "idolatry" I just mean a state of mind, a clinging to or identifying with some concept as sacred and universal. As I see it, earnestly accusing "idolatry" is to practice it.

Well, it is true that if what even a fraction of what is said about religions in today's world were actually true, then you would have to be intellectually defective to believe any of it.

But then, what drew me to Buddhism was the 'finger pointing at the moon' analogy - that any religion is simply a signpost, or a finger pointing at the moon - look at what is being pointed at, not at the sign.

But that presumes there *is* a moon.

And in fact we do use "seems to me" to be a preliminary for something. It seems to you that my argument is wrong. It does not seem this way to me. — darthbarracuda

I didn't say that we don't take "seems to me" as a preliminary, I said we don't take it as justification.

Now it seems to me, like you haven't produced an argument. You have simply asserted that the existence of a soul is "highly unlikely", without justifying this claim. I receive this statement as a proposition. I can either accept it as a premise, and proceed toward wherever the logic you produce takes me, or I can ask you to justify your proposition. I like to see propositions justified before proceeding, otherwise the logical process may be a meaningless waste of time. If the only reason for your proposition is that such a premise is necessary for you to reach the desired conclusion, then you are begging the question. That is why I ask for justification of such propositions before accepting them as premises.

From a more naturalistic point of view, I can. There is no being 100% sure (even about this claim). Truth is estimated by likelihood. — darthbarracuda

It does not justify your proposition to say that from my "point of view", a naturalistic one, the proposition is self-evident, because now what is required is a justification of your point of view. If by "naturalistic", you mean that all things are natural, I would dismiss this point of view as unjustified, because it excludes the possibility of anything artificial. And isn't your "point of view" itself artificial? If your claim is that the distinction between artificial and natural should not be upheld, then I'd like to see this justified.

My point is that it seems interesting that we associate this idea of 'I' with a very limited perspective of the totality that we occupy (our bodies).

There are many people who don't conclude that the limited perspective given to us by science and the fashion for scientism based common thought, is the reality. I live in a predominantly irreligious community, I wouldn't say atheist, but perhaps agnostic. Many of these people readily consider reincarnation, souls and the supernatural as a possibility. There is a predominant predisposition that such cannot be determined either way and folk just get on with their lives.

Actually it is only in recent history in the west that there are a sizeable number of folk who don't take an afterlife, or reincarnation (and from there perhaps resurrection) as a possibility.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think the idolatry is the key problem that I take serious issue with. — saw038

I think idolatry is a key problem too. I just don't think contemporary Christian idolatry is directed toward 'graven images', statuary, and the like. The OT prohibition on graven images was a reaction to their contemporaries, Baal worshippers and others, who thought their gods and the graven images were one and the same -- the way some Hindus think that the god and the statue of the god in a temple are one and the same. The statues of the Virgin Mary or the four Evangelists or whoever are visual references, not representations. (And if somebody didn't explain who the statue was of, a lot of people wouldn't know whether it was St. John, Aristotle, or their congressman.

The idolatry of modern Christians is the emotional and capital investment in bricks and mortar. "This church is us and God's house at the same time. God lives here. We are on good terms with God here. Without this edifice which we maintain, God would be homeless, and so would our faith. Maintaining and beautifying this structure is the heart of our faith, the most important thing we do here."

No Christian would articulate such an idea, of course, but if you look at church budgets, church fundraising efforts, church giving -- the building, the organ, the stained glass windows, etc. -- are the heart of concern. That is an idolatry.

Most churches send money to food shelves, world missions, Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities, etc. but it's a pittance compared to the expenditures on building and it's contents.

The idolatry is revealed in the action, not in a superstition about graven images.

You can't just dismiss the possibility of a soul, by saying it seems to be highly unlikely. You may be one who lives your life making decisions based on what "seems" to be the case, but this is philosophy, and we don't take "seems to me" as justification for any such assertion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I dismiss it by (1) there being no evidence of such a thing with respect to the multitude of vague ways that people have defined it, (2) the idea of nonphysical existents being incoherent.

I think the publication of The God Delusion was a real turning point - — Wayfarer

I've only read bits and pieces of it, but I can see how it might have that effect. Dawkins isn't someone who should dabble in philosophy in my opinion, because he kind of sucks at it. He should stick with zoology. David Deutsch is another. He's even worse as a philosopher than Dawkins in my opinion. Deutsch should stick to doing physics from a strictly instrumentalist perspective.

Of course, I think some philosophers who were trained as philosophers suck, too, but that's another story.

I dismiss it by (1) there being no evidence of such a thing with respect to the multitude of vague ways that people have defined it, (2) the idea of nonphysical existents being incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Do you think the idea that concepts are nonphysical existents, is incoherent? Why then is this idea taught to us in university, in philosophy classes? It never appeared incoherent to me when it was taught to me in school. Do you think that philosophy, in general, is incoherent, because this appears to be one of the fundamental principles taught in philosophy?

Of course, I think some philosophers who were trained as philosophers suck, too, but that's another story. — Terrapin Station

Do you have any respect for philosophy whatsoever Terrapin?

1. Was Jesus' resurrection only a work of literature with no physical grounds that such a thing occurred?
2. Was Jesus' resurrection a true story that transcended the realm of physical laws as we currently perceive them?

I would not conflate physical truth with theological truth. These are two different lenses, one that has to do with science's view of the world and the other with a community's faith/belief, while I am not saying there can't be communication & interchange between the two, trying to understand one by use of the other is, I think, a mistake.

My thoughts exactly.

incidentally, I have told this anecdote before - some years back, there was a sensational news story that an archeologist claimed to have found physical remnants of Jesus. (in the form of an ossuary, although it was discredited very quickly).We had a rather heated dinner-table conversation about this alleged fact, during which I said, 'surely you can see if this were true, it would undermine the whole basis of Christianity'. I was amazed to hear that nobody else at the table could see why that might be. 'Surely', they said, ' "Jesus' message" is still the same'. But I said, no Christian could accept that - for which I had a cup of tea thrown over me!

It was at that exact point I realised that I am probably still Christian.

Jesus :-#