You are fairly new to the forum, so probably are not aware of some things which people say on the forum which are really racist, or loaded with prejudices. I think it would be worth looking at some of the old threads on race on the forum. I believe that the moderators only make ground rules to try to prevent people being allowed to say anything. I feel that you are rushing into this, and will do not do yourself any favours if you keep on the way you are going. I am comploetely opposed to racism of any kind, but it is such a delicate topic, and very complex because racism appears in blatant and subtle forms.

I hope that you are okay! I do feel completely demoralised by many aspects of life in our current world. It does seem to be becoming rather technocratic. I have been working on a couple of new threads and the one which I feel may be related to what you are saying is,' What are we? What Does It Mean To Be Human'. It is a thread which begins with Gaugin, who did his painting, 'Where Do We Come From? What Are We, Where Are We Going'? when he was feeling suicidal. Your views would be very welcome on that thread. If you read it some of it may appear as being a bit disjointed, because I had two ideas for threads and tried to use these to make one, and I have edited my title a few times.

I will add there is a difference between being suicidal and being perceived as suicidal. I once got seen as a risk by the transport police. I had got on the wrong bus, landed up in the country, and found a train station. I was hoping to get a train but they had finished, so I sat on a bench, thinking that I would stay out and, then, go straight to what work the next day. But, I think that the police thought I was about to throw myself under a train and I ended up being taken to A& E and having to wait to be assessed the next day. Of course, I never got to work the next day at all. Looking back, the funniest thing, although it was not funny at the time, was explaining it to a manager on the phone, especially as I remembered the name of the station as Radcastle rather than Hackbrige, and my manager told me that there was no such place. I think that she thought I was really round the bend.

Anyway, I am going out shortly, but I will probably log in to the forum at some point in a cafe. I am taking advantage of being able to go to such places, in case any further lockdowns are on the way. Anyway, please take care and hope that are able to express your ideas in my threads or any other ones.

I think that it is important to link racism and prejudice. I believe that it is useful to think of prejudice as being about how people prejudge or make assumptions about others, as a starting point for consideration.

I am not sure whether I will participate in this further. It all depends how the discussion goes...

You say' 'the human mind has become a trashcan.'
I think it is up to us to try to stop that from happening. We are constantly bombarded with all kinds of information on television, newspapers and the internet. Some of it tells of human beings behaving in horrific ways, and humanity is so large that is easy to end up feeling of complete insignificance.

However, I think that it is possible to go beyond all of that. I have times when I feel useless and I am sure that I have plenty of vices. Despite that, I do hold on to the quest to try and cultivate my mind through trying to cultivate my mind, through thinking,reading and writing, as well as interacting with people. Sometimes, I find groups the hardest aspect of life because group dynamics are so complex. But, ultimately, I believe that each one of us has to take responsibility for our life or destiny and I am determined to prevent my mind from becoming a 'trashcan.'

I think that I am in agreement with you that it is best to venture into the red zones of philosophy rather than steer clear of them. I am not speaking specifically of nihilism though. Of course, on a personal level, we may find that there are aspects of philosophy and life which are too much to think about at all. It may be that on an intuitive level, people may realise that topics and areas are best avoided. However, sometimes if there are red zones it is a sign that they are not completely avoidable but are acute, and will have to be explored at some point.

I think that it is important to ask to what extent human beings are a product of the environment and predictable. It goes back to the nature vs nurture argument. I think that genetics comes into the picture as well. We can ask are criminals born or made? I think that it is complex mixture and experiences which people have can have such a detrimental effect in shaping how we become. But, I do think that some individuals seem to have the ability to rise above so many factors which are going against them, and I see this as an ideal worth aiming towards, because it can even be tempting to give up in the face of too much stress and oppressive life circumstances.

This is connected to learning to become human. I think that it is important to have ideals and dreams. I believe that if we don't strive towards the highest possible ones it is easy to be dragged to the lowest ones. I think it is worth thinking about people who have strived to be the best examples, such as Ghandi.

I agree that thinking can be a lonely life. For many, religious communities are the cement of their lives.The idea of thinking 'against oneself' also makes sense to me as I have as heated rows with myself, over ideas, as many taking place on this forum.

I still have not outrightly discussed my own kinds of questioning of religion with my mum, and my father died without me ever following through the discussions we had as a teenager. My dad used to speak of 'buying a ticket into heaven.'

I find it interesting that your mother was a psychiatric nurse, because that is my own work background. I worked with so many staff in nursing who were fundamentalist in psychiatric nursing. If I was on night shifts I used to frequently be next to staff reading their Bibles. I remember one time I was reading Marilyn Manson's autobiography how a member of staff was so bothered, and for a long time afterwards kept on and on about it. I can also imagine that you have experienced a difficult time as an atheist, in the black community, because a vast proportion of the nursing staff were from Africa and the West Indies. However, the evangelical people do seem to have a sense of enjoyment of life, and most of them love dancing.

I am still thinking about your last reply. I will write a response tomorrow because I have written a lot of posts and my eyes are so tired that I am not planning to write any further ones today.

I am glad that you can appreciate the numinous, especially the arts. I think that I know people who claim to be Christians or of other religious persuasion, but don't seem to have much appreciated for anything beyond the mundane. I also think a lot of people adopt religious beliefs but don't really reflect on them that much at all. I used to have really complex discussions with my parents, mainly as teenager, so I think that it was inevitable that I would question religion at some point. However, even though they engaged in discussion with me, as far as I am aware, they never really questioned in the way I have done. At the point where I really was questioning I stopped discussing religion with them at all, because I thought it would be too difficult for them and for me.

Thanks for the link, as it was extremely relevant to the question which I raised. I think that the statement by Einstein is especially helpful. It does make me think of the progression of ideas which Frazer points to in 'The Golden Bough': myth, magic and science. My own feeling is that in some ways there are conflicts and in other ways there are potential unities. I don't really see the theory of evolution as being in conflict with religion because it is fairly easy to view the Book of Genesis as a mythic account and still hold onto other ideas, especially those in the Old Testament. One potential area which is not so easy to resolve is that of life after death.

It is interesting to think how Buddhism allows for more flexibility than Christianity or other theistic religions. But, in my own view, I think that if I really consider a belief in God, my own way of embracing such an idea would be very different from most orthodox ones. I definitely would not be thinking of God as some kind of father. Really, I am into wishing to hold onto certain elements of religious thinking, underlying all religions, more in the way Aldous Huxley spoke in, 'The Perennial Wisdom.' I am more inclined to think of Jesus and Buddha as more advanced in their thinking, like many others described by Richard Bucke. While I am not certain about reincarnation, I do wonder if it would be really possible for a person to achieve that kind of level of awareness within one lifetime.

Generally, I see dogmatiism of any kind as problematic insofar as it seems to be about the need to assert one viewpoint so strongly, as if one was writing in capital letters. I have friends who are atheists and ones who are religious, but they don't seem entrenched in dogmatiism. I have been a bit startled by many various threads which are being started with an emphasis on the extremes of being for or against religion. It is one of the aspects of this forum which I really dislike, and I believe that my real intention behind this particular thread is about trying to think beyond the extremes and rigidity.

I think that your point about the Bible being written by humans is important. It does involve considering how it was written is essential. We have to consider what got included and what was excluded. This involves the history of the Church, especially the climate of tension and what were considered to be Gnostic and, thereby cast outside, especially under the authority of Origen.The Gospel of John and his Book of Revelation, somehow made it into the canon of accepted teachings, whereas many other ended up in the collection which was discovered in Nag Hammadi.

But, apart from this we have to consider the migration of ideas, and the way in which ideas in the Old Testament, were drawn from diverse sources, probably including Egyptian ones. It is interesting to see how certain themes and symbolic ideas are similar in Christianity and other religious traditions.

However, I do believe that ideas cannot be dismissed simply because they are symbolic, because that is the language of the human psyche. In that way, I don't think that they should be seen as made up. It makes a big difference whether we see the ideas in the Bible, or in the sacred texts of other religions as literal or symbolic, but I think that we could still see the realisation of symbolism as being from a divine source, even if this involves some kind of juxtaposition of these ideas within the human mind. Also, we could ask how much is based on historical facts and how much on the symbolic interpretation of certain facts?That is where I think it gets rather difficult.

I finished reading the writings of Plotinus yesterday. On an intuitive level, they make sense to me, but I can see why a lot of people find that ideas, such as the soul and the One are problematic.

I do come with an appreciation of the idea of the Forms, but, once again, with certain critical reservations. I know that Aristotle, was critical of the idea, because he could not see how they could be measured. I do think that Jung's ideas about archetypes is useful for considering the whole area of thought. You say that he was coming from a psychoanalytic approach, and, of course, that is true, but you must bear in mind that he had such an in depth knowledge of ideas, especially of aspects of Western and Eastern religion. He was a writer who went far beyond psychology, and into the realm of philosophical discussions.

If I am honest, I read writings of Plato and Plotinus but I find it difficult to come up with a clear acceptance or rejection, although, at some point, I may come to such a position, in the context of thinking about them in connection with other areas and aspects of philosophy.

I am willing to come up with my own working definitions. They are based on a mixture of my own reading and thinking.I would say that religion involves a certain set of beliefs about life, which is based on some belief in an underlying source or higher power, which human beings believe have been known through some kind of revelation. I would say that the philosophy of religion involves the exploration of the basic questions which are relevant for the rational exploration of the ideas which are the basis for individual and cultural religious ideas. This can be done through examination of religious texts. It can also involve drawing upon various other disciplines, such as the physical and social sciences to aid the critical discussion of the recurrent themes which occur in religion and it can include looking at comparative religion too.

The question of what does the Bible have to do with atheism involves that of whether one chooses to accept or reject the belief that the texts involve some divine revelation. The Judaeo- Christian worldview is a religious system which suggests that God revealed himself to mankind. However, this incorporates the ideas of the Old Testament, Jahweh, and the teachings of Jesus and the ideas of the other New Testament writers.

I think that reason is essential to trying to understand any of the questions underlying religion. I think that it important to be able to step into the perspectives of the people who wrote the religious texts. We are in such a different position of information than certain other eras, but I definitely don't think that the ideas were just made up. I do think that people were searching for answers and, even now, I don't think that science provides all of them. It provides basic models but they should not be taken too concretely, just as literal interpretations of sacred texts often leads to misunderstandings.

Thanks for the response, I will read it fully this afternoon.

I will write a full response to you and Dingo Jones later, but I am going to do a few things and go to the shop. However, I think that the idea of you being an altarboy will make many on the forum smile. I have often wondered is the picture on the profile you as a child?

So, you are not sure about the nature of my question. The particular one comes in connection to my observations of some people who seem to think that religion and science can work together. For example, I know many people who work in the field of science and are Christians, or belong to some other organised religion. However, I am aware of other people who see the relationship between science and religion as involving an inherent clash.

I think that you are right to say that some aspects of life can be looked at by religion and others by science, but I don't think that it is as simple. I know that many people who are religious come to that by saying that they have faith. For many, this can even make it into a sin to question religious beliefs at all. But, I think sometimes the facts of science seem to glare in contrast to this. For example, I was taught to believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus, and many other supernatural beliefs. I could give up any kind of religious beliefs altogether and maybe I will. However, something seems a bit wrong with atheism. I was reading Plotinus yesterday before writing this thread and he was speaking about the soul and some of this seemed to resonate truth for me, and I think that perspectives of some who remove religion just seem rather flat.

If I am discussing religion with you I see it as being more than just defining the word religion and others. What I am aware of is the thread which you wrote several months ago on one of St Paul's letters, in which you were asking about whether being a Christian had to involve an emphasis on suffering. I did have very brief engagement with you on that thread and, at some stage in the thread you describe yourself as a default Christian.

I am probably in a similar position, but with a lot of niggles over it. I was extremely religious as a teenager. The real trigger for me questioning Christianity was due to a friend killing himself over his own angst, which I think was over this, although I had not seen him in the couple of weeks before he killed himself. But, on the last time I spoke with him he was reading St Paul's writings and he told me that he had smashed up a mirror because he was unable to live up to the life which involved following Jesus.

This lead me to really questioning the Bible, but I was beginning to do so anyway. I have never become an outright atheist, because something feels a bit wrong with it to me intuitively. Nevertheless, I see the biggest issue in trying to make sense of The Bible as being to what extent to take the ideas literally. I do often dwell on it, and wrote this thread in connection with how I am doing so based on the many different posts and threads on the forum for or against religion.

I have thought about what I am trying to achieve in this thread. It is prompted by the way in which I am seeing so much opposition between the ideas of science and religion on this forum. Often, if I am involved in threads where it appears like a war is breaking out over these questions, I am inclined to get out of the discussion, but that is probably because I have a war over the issues within my own head in the first place.

I understand that you are an atheist and I am sure that you have come to that position based on your own searching. I am just surprised how people seem to get to a clear position because I see the debate between science and religion as being so mushy. I think that for many people Darwin's ideas are of key importance. I can remember as a child, going to school and having a teacher explain these ideas very badly and also being taught Biblical ideas at home and at church, which gave me so much grounds for confusion later. But, I think that there is so much potential for confusion and I believe that Darwin did not really come up with the idea of evolution to discredit religion in the first place.

I am aware that the differences between religious ideas and science goes way beyond Darwin. I am starting this thread with a view to some discussion about it, and it is quite likely that it may fizzle and die out before the end of the day. I would like it to be some kind of construction discussion about the topic, partly to sort out my own thoughts and I would like it to have this potential for others too.

I will just answer this really quickly by saying that it involves sound principles of logic. In particular, if one wishes to say that they believe in God, it is not enough from a philosophical point of view to say simply that one feels that way. Of course, that is not to say that one is not entitled to do that on a personal level, but that will not hold in the way of philosophical argument. Essentially, a major aspect of any tension between religion and philosophy is that science is based on facts, or, at least, what appear to be facts.

Rationality is seen as a the main aspect of philosophy since the enlightenment. It is not as if every human being probably uses it, but if any discussion of religion is explored in a way within philosophy this is essential, or else we might as well just say absolutely anything. Anyway, I am about to log off for now, because I haven't got out of bed, and was really just checking my phone. I think that we will probably communicate a bit later.

I hope that our threads are seen by others as complementary, but you will have to bear in mind that the there is already a major one focusing on praising science and at least one on religion already.

In response to your view of rationality, I am not saying that it is the only way human beings approach life. However, if say a person has to stand up to any evaluation, it needs to be subjected and evaluated according to rationality. I don't think common sense is particularly useful because while we may use such an approach in our basic day to day thinking it does not in any way go to the critical level needed.

I think you should try to alter your argument a little. I realise that your thread is focusing on pros and cons more specifically, than the actual discussion here. However, it is really focused on the same topic, which means that they are really almost in competition with one another. Ultimately,this is likely to mean that one is likely to fall and the other succeed. I don't wish to change my title again, especially as it is on its second page, so I am wondering if you could change your question a little. I am writing this here because I don't wish to spoil the start of your first thread. Of course, it is entirely up to you, and it could be that people would rather have a poll, and are sick of my writing.

The one aspect which I think is important is that when considering religion and religious experience is that it is essential that it is approached from the standpoint of rationality. I believe that this is essential for any serious philosophical consideration of religion. Otherwise I think that it really will be seen as being within the realms of nonsense, and be thrown aside by the vast majority of humanity.

I am logging out for tonight, but I am thinking that the main issue to be addressed is the underlying source of consciousness, whether it is explained in religious or scientific terms.

I have just got home, but I am aware that my basic questions is how do we understand the basis of our knowledge about constructing experience of one experience of consciousness, and its source? I am not saying that this is a perfect question, but it does seem to me to be one which is relevant for thinking about who we are individually, in connection to a larger perspective about identity and life, from a any larger perspective, whether it is religious or scientific.

Yes, I am trying to survive too, but logging out for today, and will see what discussion arises tomorrow.

I am going to bed for today, but I will reply tomorrow.

I think that it is a very blurry line. Initially, I began reading Plotinus today with a view to discussion with @Apollodorus in relation to a thread which I began a few days ago. However, the more I I think about it, the whole question of thinking about the divine becomes more blurry. However, my own foreclosure on such matters remains because both the language of those who speak of the divine and those who speak of neuroscience seem caught up in knots.


@Madfool has already created a thread based on my own thoughts about philosophical knots and philosophical dangers, but, from my own perspective, philosophy, especially in connection between the areas arising in the area between science and religion is like being completely entangled in knots, and my own quest is about trying to see ways of disentangling these knots.

I am sure that there have been great mistakes in the way the Church has interpreted science. My own perspective is really to try to especially in mistakes in understanding. This is essential to the development of strategies which focus on addressing the issues of our time, especially ecology and thinking about the wellbeing of future generations.

It is a good question to what extent they are compatible or opposed. I have seen some threads on the site which try to see religion and philosophy working together. However, on the other hand, I see so much antagonism between the two on the site. This makes me confused. I think that the whole area is the biggest muddle in philosophy, which is why I am raising it.

I would also recommend that you read the thread on the praise of science, because it the popular thread and it is possible that no one will ever look at, or make any comment, on the thread which I have which I have started because this site is extremely competitive, and I am sure that many on this site see me as a complete waste of space entirely.

However, if you wish to interact with me that is fine because I am willing to explore all areas, even if they are way beyond the scope of the popular areas of debate. My own interaction with the site is such that I think that the people who consider themselves as important on the site probably see me as of no significance at all. Nevertheless, I get loads of replies daily, and do my best to reply to them.

I think that all the different approaches point to possible methods and conclusions. I see it as a very complex area, but others may not see it that way. Shortly, I will probably log off for today, but it will be interesting to see if anyone responds to you or to me. There are so many debates on the forum, so I would say that if no one else participates with us we should not feel too downcast, but I hope to interact with you again, and hope that you find many people to engage with. I think that there is such a variety of viewpoints available, and that is probably why I continue to engage on this site.

That is interesting as well. I actually wrote two threads already on religion already. You can look them up if you are interested, if you look at my profile and discussions. Really, I think that I am better at asking questions than answering them, but I do believe that both are important . But the three way opposition is important and it may be that you will ask the questions which will I have not yet vocalised.

The question of eternal truths is an important area for discussion, and you may even wish to start a thread on the topic. I do practice meditation, but not as often as I think would be helpful. I often put off meditation until I feel up to it, but sometimes do it when I really don't know what else might help. When I was lying awake in the night, knowing that I had to go to work in the morning, even if I had not slept at all, was often the point where I turned to trying to meditate, even if it was in bed rather than sitting on a hard backed chair.

I will finish discussion for now, and you may find many interesting discussions beyond mine. Some may see science and religion as united in the quest for knowledge, whereas others may see it as being about opposition, but I will stop speaking and see if anyone is even interested in my question.

I am sorry for playing around and editing this title. In the first time in months I have been able to go out and have a couple of drinks in a pub, so is it surprising that I have sat, using my phone, writing a thread? In doing so, I ended up engaging with a couple of fairly new members, and edited my title, so I will leave it for now, and see if my current title is of any worthwhile discussion.

I am interested to hear that you have read posts of mine before joining. I am interested in meditation and I am a bit mystical by nature, but try to balance this with critical analysis, based on philosophy and other disciplines. I am still contemplating this title, and trying to edit it to open up the fullest discussion possible. Anyway, I welcome you to the forum, and hope it provides you with scope for thinking and raising of questions. I believe that each person who comes to the forum asks and opens up questions in a unique way.

I realise that you are almost completely new to the forum, so it is a privilege to engage with you and hope you continue to participate in the forum. I have just raised the question today because I like to think a bit beyond the tick boxes of current thinking, which just seems to be about the ongoing celebration of science. I am not against science and not even convinced of that the fierce battle between religion and science should be at the centre of philosophical debate.

I read the ideas from writers of many eras. I do realise that neuroscientists and other scientists capture important knowledge, and would not wish to underplay such ideas. However, when I look back at the history of philosophy, I do wonder how it all fits together, with a view to how we, those before us, and those to come will see it. Each of us comes with limits, but, even though I am only one voice on the forum, I believe that it is important to look at philosophy from the widest possible angles, not just in terms of science, but in connection with the history of ideas.

I have noticed that you have posted less in the last few weeks and it really did make me wonder if it was because you thought that the site had deteriorated recently. I have noticed that a number of members I have seen on the site have previously not posting in the last month or so. Of course, it may be that lockdowns are easing and that you have better avenues for ideas.

I would add that I am not trying to go down the pathway of cultural relativism I am trying to think about ideas in a way which is able to transcend the dichotomies of the limitations of the specifics of varying cultural and historical contexts. This is more in relation to universal aspects or foundations of ideas and value systems, which are not restricted to the historical and cultural biases.