Dead to those for whom it has no meaning, to be sure. :grin: — Janus

It was stupid of me to claim that the vast majority of religious authorities have been proven to be frauds. That hasn't been proven and I doubt the majority are intentionally deceitful. It may be fair to say that Wayfarer, who I believe is a Buddhist, disagrees with the vast majority of spiritual authorities. That doesn't mean that he hates them. In fact, I would guess that he considers them something like kindred spirits, all living under the general banner of religion or perhaps some form of idealism. In that way, they are all of the same tribe.

Clearly, being a "successful biological organism" is rather devoid of meaning. — praxis

How so? Wouldnt it be dependent on how one defined, "successful" or what entails "success"?

Your ideas are not absurd, you're merely now facing the absurd as, hopefully, we all do eventually. — praxis

What does this even mean? What exactly are you saying that is absurd?

Clearly, being a "successful biological organism" is rather devoid of meaning.
— praxis
How so? Wouldnt it be dependent on how one defined, "successful" or what entails "success"? — Harry Hindu

Yes, certainly, but without the narrative it sounds rather bleak.

Yes, certainly, but without the narrative it sounds rather bleak. — praxis

A narrative can be bleak. Which narrative?

How is life absurd?

You've seriously never heard of absurdism?

A narrative can be bleak. Which narrative? — Harry Hindu

Whichever one defines, "successful" or what entails "success," I assume.

You've seriously never heard of absurdism? — praxis

I asked why life is absurd. It seems to me that youre saying its simply a way of thinking.

Whichever one defines, "successful" or what entails "success," I assume. — praxis

How is something that is successful, bleak?

How is something that is successful, bleak? — Harry Hindu

Well, legend has it that Sisyphus successfully rolled a rock up a hill. :party:

I asked why life is absurd. It seems to me that youre saying its simply a way of thinking. — Harry Hindu

As opposed to what? It's also a matter of experiencing the feeling of meaninglessness.

Well, legend has it that Sisyphus successfully rolled a rock up a hill. :party: — praxis

I dont see the bleakness in the above quote.

As opposed to what? — praxis

As opposed to the fact that life is actually absurd, which is why I asked why life is absurd. Is it actually absurd, or do some people just think that and why?

Is there a point to your feigned ignorance?

Because you are incapable of answering my questions with coherent answers, it seems to me that you have a feigned understanding of your own claims.

It was stupid of me to claim that the vast majority of religious authorities have been proven to be frauds. That hasn't been proven and I doubt the majority are intentionally deceitful. It may be fair to say that Wayfarer, who I believe is a Buddhist, disagrees with the vast majority of spiritual authorities. That doesn't mean that he hates them. In fact, I would guess that he considers them something like kindred spirits, all living under the general banner of religion or perhaps some form of idealism. In that way, they are all of the same tribe. — praxis

Good of you to say so. When I first started reading these things I was very negative about mainstream religion, and believed that Eastern spirituality was something completely different to that. But my views have changed over time, because I have found, shall we say, pockets of wisdom in many different places (although I also acknowledge that there's a lot of fallacious religious beliefs and delusions.)

But apart from all that, what I'm arguing is that the way religious authority was imposed on Western culture, and the violence that it caused, is one of the causes of the reaction against it in the form of secularism, or philosophies that try to define everything without reference to religion - like, 'Anything But God'. But that reaction is very much culturally conditioned - so we tend to absorb it, without really being conscious of the background to it. So it's a matter of becoming critically aware of this background, rather than simply lashing out against it, as many tend to do.

Great point. :up:

If you can find an error in any of my “claims” then please point them out, @Harry Hindu.

(although I also acknowledge that there's a lot of fallacious religious beliefs and delusions.) — Wayfarer

How do you distinguish between fallacious religious beliefs and non-fallacious religious beliefs? Is there more evidence for your religious beliefs than say a belief in Odin?

How do you distinguish between fallacious religious beliefs and non-fallacious religious beliefs? — Harry Hindu

I wouldn't make the effort with those who aren't interested in the subject.

I've been on internet forums for around ten years now, and most discussions of religion are what I call 'coconut shy arguments':

Coconut shy
noun BRITISH
a fairground sideshow where balls are thrown at coconuts in an attempt to knock them off stands.

:smile:

Frankly, I don’t see much of a difference between an organized religion and any other sort of ideology or shared fiction. Religion is particularly powerful because it has existential meaning or significance, but the essential function is the same, which is binding large groups of people with comma goals and values so they can act cooperatively.

Trumpism, for example, is a developing ideology (I use the term loosely) where its adherents value the solidarity of the group more than they value the truth. It’s reported that Trump has made more than 10k false claims since his inauguration. Yesterday Trump claimed that Mueller is a “never Trumper,” signaling to his followers that, though Republican, he’s still a heathen. I mean, isn’t that bizarre language for a president to use, a never-Trumper?

I know you’re not a Trump fan and that’s why I use his example. Surely his ability to influence his supporters, or rather the manner of his influence, concerns you.

Of course it does but it has nothing to with what I think remains significant in religious philosophy.

which is binding large groups of people with comma goals and values so they can act cooperatively. — praxis

Plotinus thought of his religious philosophy in terms of ‘the flight of the alone to the alone’. That is the element in philosophical spirituality which speaks to me.

The reaction against religious belief in the form of secularism is centered in concern with irrationality, is my point.

As opposed to the fact that life is actually absurd, which is why I asked why life is absurd. Is it actually absurd, or do some people just think that and why? — Harry Hindu

I don’t think anyone will care if I declare life or the universe absurd. Anyway, if that were known it wouldn’t be a philosophical matter. Why do some think it is? Because they’re not comfortable with not knowing, I suppose.

What do you think?

I say the idea of "higher knowledge" is an "infantile fantasy" because the child naturally looks to the adult for "higher" guidance; which is inevitable as long as the child is unschooled in the ways of the world. I understand that you will have an emotional resistance to accepting what I am saying, and I predict that you will do the politician's thing of evading trying to come up with a straight answer to the questions posed, or misinterpreting what I am saying and responding to the misinterpretation, because not to do either of those would lead you to see for yourself how there is no real ground upon which you are standing, and experience the vertigo that realization will bring. Maybe one day you'll be ready for it; I hope so.. — Janus

The first great leap was made when humans moved from stage one of primitive religiosity to stage two of scientific realism. This was the stage modern humans tended to be at. Then some people become dissatisfied with scientific realism, perceiving its deficiencies, and realize that there is something beyond fact and science. Such people progress to a higher plane of development which he called stage three.

The problem was that stage one and stage three looked exactly the same to those in stage two. Consequently, those in stage three are seen as having had some sort of breakdown, a relapse into infantile nonsense. Only those in stage three, who have been through stage two, can understand the difference between stage one and stage three.

E F Schumacher, economist and philosopher; talk given on BBC Radio The Insufficiency of Liberalism, 1957 (from The Education of E F Schumacher).

So, I get you don't like it, but maybe one day you'll be ready for it. ;-)

Great point. :up:

If you can find an error in any of my “claims” then please point them out — praxis

How can I find error in your claims if you don't answer my questions? You error would be in avoiding my questions. They should be questions you should be asking yourself.

I don’t think anyone will care if I declare life or the universe absurd. — praxis

Then why did you seem to care, and think that I cared, that Camus declared that life is absurd?

Anyway, if that were known it wouldn’t be a philosophical matter. — praxis

Is there a point to your feigned ignorance? — praxis

Exactly. Practicing philosophy in an intellectually honest way requires us to feign ignorance of our own beliefs that we often take for granted - to look at our beliefs in a more objective light. This is what I did when I was a Christian that eventually led me to a "180" in my worldview. I questioned the beliefs that I took for granted.

Why do some think it is? Because they’re not comfortable with not knowing, I suppose.

What do you think? — praxis

I think that you have just described the God of the Gaps.

I wouldn't make the effort with those who aren't interested in the subject.

I've been on internet forums for around ten years now, and most discussions of religion are what I call 'coconut shy arguments':

Coconut shy
noun BRITISH
a fairground sideshow where balls are thrown at coconuts in an attempt to knock them off stands.

:smile: — Wayfarer

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't be wasting my time asking the question.

I've been on internet forums for about 15 years and I have found that all religious claims are simply a use of loaded language.

Isn't liberty more important than purpose?

Liberty to do what? I've gotten to the point where I'm staring at a glass of water in the bathroom and thinking "Well, should I drink this? Should I prolong this life of meaningless existence? On the other hand, it doesn't make me more holy than existence to die of thirst."

If those folks have assigned purposes to themselves, then there are purposes, no?

Sure, but the choice of purpose is totally arbitrary, and it's hard to get excited about something superfluous. What I'm saying is that I think I have a way out of this: "being an animal" being my purpose, I'm avoiding the entire mountain of cultural accretions.

I'm avoiding the entire mountain of cultural accretions. — yupamiralda

Those accretions run deeper than you may realize.

You have taken up an interpretation surrounding the importance of biology and evolutionary purpose, this is also lacking any truth, beyond the truth it has to you as a compelling idea.

Well of course in the long run we're all dead and then the universe will run out of heat but in the meantime we can live our biology. The idea that this is "lacking in truth" -- compared with something like "my vote matters" or "I am a child of God" -- is what I'm saying otherwise about. Biology seems like the default truth, the least arbitrary truth, and hence the surest basis for meaning (purpose).

Clearly, being a "successful biological organism" is rather devoid of meaning.

I don't think it does at all. It means my flirting has meaning. It means sex has meaning. It means dominance signaling with other males has meaning. It means procreation has meaning. It means parenting has meaning(since mammals rear their young). It means extended family and clan have meaning. Ultimately it means culture has meaning, in the sense of education as further young-rearing.

Neitzsche's got a line somewhere where he doesn't care if something is true or false, but he looks rather at the functional effect on the species. I don't care so much about the species (or, eg "white people") -- I keep the focus on myself and my immediate kin.

Occams razor and I'm not using these poorly defined and loaded terms, like "spirituality", "sacred" and "divine". — Harry Hindu

Sacred entails non human. Fully valorizing what isn't human, and fear of autonomous history or time without subjecting it to abolition and recreation. In a way, prehistory or the Golden Age could be considered sacred. It doesn't make sense to attach special importance to recorded, additive time, lineal historicity, or to treat modernity as more advanced. It isn't more advanced for all we know.

Youre comparing your view with humans' preliminary explanation of the world and their place in it - when humans believed that they were the focus of creation. — Harry Hindu

Animism is more the opposite of what you say here. Human exceptionalism has never been higher than it is today. If this is the concern, religion has played a minor, though not exempt, role compared to what has occurred since the Enlightenment, which gave rise to a belief that nothing ought to be subscribed to that couldn't be measured.

The Enlightenment has led to transhumanism, the most human-centered orientation ever; to be sure the post human thinks he is the focus of creation. It's already an anthropocentric view to think in terms of a creation, we don't know if the universe had a beginning. Ancient or modern anthropolatry hardly makes a difference to my way of seeing things. How I choose to sculpt my belief system takes more from archaic ontology (less object proliferation determinism), however, than mania of physicalism we have today. How has so much overextension into physicalism orientation transpired when we have met survival needs, keeping the organism alive, probably 10,000 years ago? A prodigy. Must be for sport, play, or carnival or whatever, beat me. Somehow excessive concern with material things has led to many, many unnecessary objects to exist, and determinism that came with said objects. It isn't a parsimonious or Occam's razor situation we have today, hate to say.

How so? Wouldnt it be dependent on how one defined, "successful" or what entails "success"?

For a biological organism, success is reproduction. With mammals this includes child-rearing. With humans one could argue it includes "culture".

How can I find error in your claims if you don't answer my questions? — Harry Hindu

By pointing out the error in the claim, of course.

You error would be in avoiding my questions.

I haven’t claimed to be avoiding your questions.

why did you seem to care, and think that I cared, that Camus declared that life is absurd?

I didn’t assume that you cared. I simply pointed out an absurdist when you inquired about the meaning of the absurd.

I care because it’s a valuable way to talk about nihilism.

Why do some think it is? Because they’re not comfortable with not knowing, I suppose.

What do you think?
— praxis

I think that you have just described the God of the Gaps.
— Harry Hindu

Nonsense, I’ve made no metaphysical description or claim whatever.

What do you think?