I can’t tell from the review, being so thickly anti-Dennett.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your personal view seems to be reminiscent of a sort of Naturalistic Evolutionary form of religion - at this point I would point you towards Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, which I find highly compelling. — alsterling

An interesting and rich argument that, frankly, is beyond my depth, at least at a glance. It inspires a new thought for me though: that for theists there must be no kind of ultimate or nominal reality; what Buddha would call ‘emptiness’ or Nagal might call the ‘view from nowhere’. For the theist that conceptual space must be occupied by the mind of God, with its will and its purposes, forever beyond the comprehension of its creation, where happiness or salvation is only attained in total acceptance of this teleology. Unsurprisingly, dispite the discrepancy in metaphysics, Buddhist religion concludes with the same recommendation to achieve happiness: total acceptance.

It would seem deviant, by your standards then, to even affirm any form of Spiritualism, Deism, Atheism or Agnosticism, whereby it does not cohere with the group mentality of a certain society (should that be an Atheist in Rome or a Theist in China). — alsterling

It would not be deviant by my standards but that of the particular society.

I don’t see it. Maybe you haven’t posted it yet.

You seemed to suggest that clarification of symbols or concepts would be productive to a discussion such as this one. Anyway, looking forward to the new topic.

I was wondering if you’ve thoroughly challenged your own lofty position. In claiming “our” ignorance, you’re saying that both theists and atheists are ignorant and don’t know the truth of the matter. You can claim your own ignorance. No one would object to that. Agnosticism, I think it’s called.

I'm just not interested, that's all. — Jake

Please.

I'm might be interested in joining a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that S reasonably challenges theism. — Jake

I just politely requested that you supply us the correct 'instructions' for what I was lead to believe is a method for seriously challenging atheism.

One of the problems with theist/atheist interactions is that they usually don't take the time to sort out the proper use of symbolism in discourse, and plunge into the debate without realizing that they are speaking different languages. — Mariner

Earlier in the topic you seemed to suggest that there was some universality to the concept of God. I could be mistaken about that. In any case, I’m curious about your concept and if you would express something about it.

In regard to universality, I was thinking that ‘ultimate authority’ may be core. I think it’s the power of authority, combined with a devaluation of reason, that may turn an atheist’s curiosity, or indifference, into concern.

You've quoted the wrong instructions — Jake

Would you mind posting the correct instructions? If you’ve previously posted them then you could just cut & paste.

Significantly, this at least highlights the fact that God, like any other thing, changes, and if it changes then it has no static or essential nature. If it were static then it would in no way be animate or alive. Lacking an essential nature, it’s just another part of what is, or, depending on how you look at the whole, nothing at all.

So, anyway, when are you going to rip my position to pieces, like a ferocious clawed Baby Jesus on steroids? — S

Yeah, when’s the show gonna start? I got my popcorn and watermelon bong all ready to go.

You guys do what you want with this thread. It lacks direction and I'm not sure where it's headed. — Posty McPostface

I suggest we turn to the ever titillating topic of Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics.

Who wants to go first?

I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion.
— praxis

Me too. I see no significant difference between the two. — Pattern-chaser

As Jake says (above) it [religion] "helps us manage our relationship with reality." — Pattern-chaser

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Jake has agreed that religion is superfluous to the project of 're-establishing a psychic connection with reality', a connection that was lost by "thought” or rather being “lost in thought.” I wouldn’t describe the situation that way but agree with the general idea. I believe a project of this kind could accurately be described as being spiritual in nature.

There are various methods for achieving this 're-establishment', some very old, like meditation, certain kinds of breathing techniques, psychedelics, and some very new, like electrical brain stimulation, but they're all about the same thing, which is deactivating the DMN (default mode network). I've previously mentioned the DMN in this topic. The DMN is active when lost in thought and is responsible for our sense of self, self-narrative, and the like. Deactivation of the DMN has various benefits like reducing existential anxiety and addiction issues.

So in this way we can have spirituality without religion. I don't think that I need to argue that there can be religion without spirituality. Most people know that there've been contrived religions or false religious leaders who've used systems of meaning to manipulate and take advantage of naive followers.

To summarize, spirituality is essentially about transcendence or "re-establishing a psychic connection with reality" and religion is about fulfilling our natural desire for meaning (shared values, purpose, etc.) and basically amounts to tribalism. Like any other natural desire such as hunger or thirst, our desire for meaning is part of a successful evolutionary survival strategy.

"Reason" (which is code for atheism) — Ram

Now is that reasonable?

But seriously, if you don't like reason there are countless other forums that don't appear to like it as well.

What point are you making here? I agree with both sentences, but don't understand how they relate to what I wrote:

An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position.
— Pattern-chaser

The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. — Pattern-chaser

The point is as I wrote, that the claim is meaningless. Either side may or may not be a faith position. Simply asserting the existence of God may not be a faith position if there's nothing behind it. For example, if you were brought up in a culture where there was no concept of God and then one day a trusted friend said to you, "God exists." You might say something like, "Uh, okay. Tell me more." But he just leaves it at that and says nothing else about it. Then the next day you run into an atheist who says, "God is dead." And you're like, "Oh crap, I just found out it existed!" In this scenario you're not occupying a faith position, right?

A religion cannot be comprised of a simple notion such as that God exists. A religion is comprised of various elements, some more essential than others, which offer meaning. In the above scenario, the concept of God is basically meaningless to you.

A person who asserts the [non-]existence of God may reach that conclusion by examining the theists narrative. Are there elements in the Bible that are inconsistent with known facts, for instance? Yes. Again, if someone just made the claim that "God exists" and nothing else, they would pretty much be ignored.

Silly straw-man. If you’re done beating on it I’ll point out that I made no claim the concept of God corisponds to nothing real, only that it’s a concept.

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

Seriously? What does “cover all of reality” even supposed to mean? You seem to have an inflated sense of human capability.

Do you have a concept by which you know the smell of mint? Write it down. — Michael Ossipoff

If I had no concept of mint I wouldn’t be able to recognize it. Write it down? You of course realize what a silly request that is. That doesn’t make it magic, it just means that I’m not capable of expressing the neurological data in written form. I could write you a poem, if that would please you.

So either killing other human beings is not against an innate moral sense or it's not immoral under particular circumstances. Can you at least outline the circumstances where it's not immoral to kill other human beings?
— praxis

In self-defense, for example. — Ram

For example? Are you suggesting that you’re unable to at least outline the circumstances where killing is not immoral?

It was never bad.

It’s unfortunate that you feel defeated rather than feeling like you’ve gain something from the exchange, if only mild amusement.

God is a concept, which is "thought,"
— praxis

What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

Do you have the ability to know things without having a concept of them?

Bottom line, what works best for a person? If worshiping a concept like God assists somebody in falling in love with life, ok, forget what I said and go for it. — Jake

To reiterate, they're not falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, or rather, their religion ('re-ligare', to tie or to bind).

Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality.
— praxis

Have you noticed that the God character bears a striking resemblance to nature? Huge beyond imagination, gloriously beautiful, utterly ruthless etc. — Jake

Is this supposed to resolve the contradiction?

I'll start simple.

Killing other human beings is wrong according to your belief in an innate moral sense. Adherents of theistic religions kill other human beings, in mass in some circumstances. The very notion of Jihad (holly war) is an exemplar of corruption.
— praxis

The first sentence is wrong. — Ram

So either killing other human beings is not against an innate moral sense or it's not immoral under particular circumstances. Can you at least outline the circumstances where it's not immoral to kill other human beings?

I'll start simple.

Killing other human beings is wrong according to your belief in an innate moral sense. Adherents of theistic religions kill other human beings, in mass in some circumstances. The very notion of Jihad (holly war) is an exemplar of corruption, according to your belief in an innate moral sense and its potential for corruption.

??? It is the exact issue.

Can you present a persuasive argument against the thought that theism or religious beliefs in general are not a corruption of this innate moral base that you propose?
— praxis

Persuasive to who? Persuasive to you? — Ram

Yes, persuasive to me.

Can you present an argument persuasive to me that there is no God? — Ram

I don't know, in any case this is a different issue and I have no interest in persuading you of that.

Humans are born pure and become corrupt. — Ram

Can you present a persuasive argument against the thought that theism or religious beliefs in general are not a corruption of this innate moral base that you propose?

So, what makes a good thread a good thread? — Posty McPostface

Seeking understanding, truth, wisdom or whatever, rather than merely trying to win an argument.

I agree with you that making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality, but I don't agree that that's a contradiction. A bit paradoxical maybe, but not a contradiction. — S

Unless I've misread him, Jake appears to be basically claiming that what he refers to as "thought" leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality," which I presume leads to existential anxiety, etc., the sort of things that religion is supposed to address. God is a concept, which is "thought," so does it not contradict his theory that a thought can lead to connection with reality?

What would be consistent with his theory? Putting aside all thoughts and perhaps especially a concept like God that is so loaded with meaning.

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. — Jake

I haven't made a scientific or factual claim. I've merely pointed out a contradiction in your reasoning. A theistic narrative is a step removed from reality and your claim is that our fall from grace arose from a "loss of psychic connection with reality."

I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion.

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. — Jake

Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality. Removed from reality in the sense of it being a 'thought', which you seem to claim is what leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality."

An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. — Pattern-chaser

This is a rather meaningless claim. A religion cannot comprise of the simple notion that 'God exists'. An entire meaning system makes up a religion. Conversely, an entire [unscientific] meaning system could be behind the person who believes in the non-existence of God. There are non-theistic religions.

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.

Knowledge of right and wrong are innate. Humans are born knowing right and wrong.
...
As far as defining morality.... I would say morality is "right and wrong". — Ram

Atheists are human and according to your beliefs humans have an innate moral base. Problem solved. :smile:

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.

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").

Apparently Trump missed his cues from Fox News and claimed that he meant it as a joke.

Imagine telling the same joke for years at rallies and it only finnialy working for the UN audience. No wonder he didn’t expect to get a laugh.

... our focus became increasingly dominated by the symbols in our mind. This took much of our focus off of the real world, thus seriously diluting a deep psychic connection with reality that animals and previous humans enjoyed. — Jake

Thought operates by a process of division. Understand that, and many other pieces of the human story fall into place. — Jake

The problem here appears to be that you're pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the cause of human psychological suffering (or a diluted deep psychic connection with reality) and fail to acknowledge that mammals use the same process of conceptual division but don't share the same affliction. All mammals distinguish things in the same basic manner that we do. The issue must be something unique to humans besides simple conceptual division, right?

It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. — Thomas Nagel

Who in their right mind would want the universe to be like that? The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings. I wouldn’t want a God designed by human beings!

This is a disappointing notion by Nagel, I must say, that within atheists lies a deep-seated fear that there may actually be a sky father. Children may fear the monster under the bed but in maturity they usually come to understand the nature of such fears and outgrow them. There may be a God or designer, but I seriously doubt it could be anything even remotely like a human could even begin to conceive.

Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.

Is that what Darwin did? How does one accomplish anything without purpose?

Sorry, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t addressing it.

We apparently have somewhat differing views about the nature of this suffering.

It's just the spin is so blatant.

This is the headline Fox News decided to go with:

Late night comics celebrate UN countries mocking Trump, United States

Brietbart is even worse:

Establishment Media Sides with Countries Laughing at America at U.N.

They were laughing at Trump, obviously.

The theory I am offering to explain the universal existence of suffering and the universal failure of all philosophies to end that suffering is that the source of suffering is not found at the level of the content of thought, but arises instead from the medium of thought itself, a universal property of the human condition. — Jake

You appear to be unwilling to clarify what you mean by 'thought'. Most neural activity is subconscious.

Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory??

I just didn't use the word "natural". I think a better word would be, "common". It isn't common to fear largeness or otherness. Some people can have a fear of largeness or otherness, and it would be considered a phobia. — Harry Hindu

I know what you mean. I tend to think of the term as an established structure, whereby if significantly disturbed will throw the surrounding order out of balance. For instance, we have a natural craving for fat and sweetness. This craving is out of balance with the current availability of fat and sugar today, and our health suffers for it. If this continues we would eventually adapt to it, but for now things are out of balance and we might say the current availability of fat and sugar is unnatural.