on discussing god and religion

Either as noun or as a verb, one is willing to situate their own sense of God and religion out in the particular world that they live in or they are not.

How do you imagine that Chopra would react to the points that I raise here?

How does he connect the dots between behaviors that he chooses here and now, his understanding of God and his imagined fate on the other side of the grave?

Or would he too just bring the discussion back up into the stratosphere of, among other things, psychologisms?

In other words, this sort of thing:

Okay, you think this. Sincerely, genuinely. And in thinking this it evokes a subjunctive frame of mind [a mental dispostion] in which you can embed “I” so as to anchor your sense of reality in something that effectively obviates the manner in which folks like me construe an essentially absurd and meaningless world that culminates [for each particular “I”] in oblivion.

This works for you. It does not work for me. Though, sure, maybe that might change.

Again, this is wholly abstract. Just one more “general description” of human interaction that you are able to believe is true “in your head”. Thus your own objectivist font of choice here is a God that brings salvation to all.

I won’t ask you what this means pertaining to the thrust of this thread because you obviously have no intention of going there.

It’s all about what you are able to convince yourself is true about God because in believing this it gives you considerably more peace of mind than anything that I am able to [here and now] fathom.

Unless of course you’re right.

Iamb,
I cannot speak for Chopra on these matters. I don’t always agree with what he says except when he brings the topic down to earth. My objective is to see matter not as curse or illusion, but as necessity and morality as ecological (also a necessity).
I appreciate your honesty.

From my perspective here though, the point isn’t what Chopra says, but the extent to which he is able to convince me that what he claims to know is true “in his head” is something that, in turn, he is able to convince me to believe is true as well.

After all, what else is there?!

What else is there to fall back on when folks discuss things like the existence of God? Or ponder distinctions between right and wrong behavior?

Only if I continue to suggest that, in order to feel some measure of psychological comfort and consolation, religious folks believe what they do about connecting the dots between “here and now” and “there and then”, will they go deeper. Only then are they likely to probe their own religious trajectories and bring perspectives that revolve around things like “necessity and morality as ecological” down to earth.

They say that they have had “personal experiences” that led them to God. Okay, bring that into the discussion I tell them. Note how these experiences have come to aid and abet them in making the choices that they do among the living in order that they will still be around [whatever they imagine that means] to reflect God’s will on the other side.

In other words, to what extent are they able to translate this into something other than just a “frame of mind”?

And the bottom line with your own frame of mind is that very, very few religious folks are inclined to believe that God saves all.

Yet that doesn’t make the enormity of what is at stake here go away. The whole point of making religious distinctions between the saints and sinners is to create a transcendental font actually able to make this distinction.

It’s not for nothing that this is at the heart and soul of the overwhelming preponderance of religious denominations.

But, from my frame of mind, you make this go away merely by believing it.

On the other hand, isn’t this part all that matters?

I get that part. But I can no longer embody it myself.

There is no sin; there is only one’s forgetting who and what he is and who and what he is part of. If mind could alter matter. we’d all be in some favorite heaven by now. We do not transcend in a deterministic world which is comprised of overlapping ecosystems. Like it or not we are enmeshed in these systems, and we forget our place in them at our own peril. There is death on this planet, but it is usually a transition of the physical body to fuel for other life forms. What becomes of mind at death? No one knows for certain, which is why there are so many takes on the matter. Belief has only to be believed as true in order to comfort. So why not find comfort in belief that all will be saved, or will remember at last who they are?

There are people who enjoy rational thought and tend to despise the emotions, they prefer the experience of a kind of euphoria from the purity of intelligence and the satisfaction of rational thinking. The mind enjoys immensely the way it is logical and controlling but above all makes sense of disorder, one could say almost mathematical. So it would not be unreasonable to say by comparison that emotions are all over the place, they are not precise and they can quickly get out of control, so why would an educated person, a scientist, for example, believe in creation. It seems quite reasonable that they would gravitate and defend Darwinian evolution or even theistic evolution, a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. The biblical account of Genesis has been deduced to a religious myth and only those uneducated in scientific methods, would seriously entertain any validity in such a “myth”, yet there are scientists who have doubts about evidence for evolution.

The Latin word religare, means “to tie, to bind”, which perhaps could explain the experience or power religion has on some.

I would argue that religions and ethics began when the brain evolved enough to allow consciousness of Self, as this this in place of ordinarily this and that consciousness. Evolution of life forms depends on the deterministic creative agendas of DNA. Cosequently, philosophies that deny the self or eschew evolutionary theories are not my cup of tea. The real debate between some scientists and some philosophers has to do with whether the creative agenda of DNA is purposeful or random and fortuitous. I opt for purpose.

Some religious thinkers believe that the advent of the "I’, the fall into mind, is the root of all evil because the "I’ can easily forget its place in the we. Some, such as the writers Of ACIM, believe evil is the lie of dearth, the thought that there isn’t really enough of necessities to go around thus perpetuating us vs them mentality. But the "I " is a lens of consciousness, an evidence of the personal. It is not the gateway to hell or to delusion.

I can only react to this as but one more “general description” of human interactions that you happen to believe “here and now” to be true “in your head”.

That, in believing it, it does comfort and console you.

But that, with respect to the aim of this thread, you won’t take this belief there.

It works for you. It doesn’t work for me. Or not anymore.

Let’s move on?

Yes, related to the point that you raised here: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=193043

In fact, religious narratives can be said to revolve entirely around this teleological sense of reality. After all, the whole point of broaching it is to focus the discussion on “the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.”

And if the only “purpose” resides in the “brute facticity” of matter evolving into mind evolving into consciousness evolving into “self” evolving into a manifestation of matter able to reflect on its own existence, then “what in the world” is the purpose of that?

And the more we probe this the more bewildering it seems to get.

Mindless matter evolving into mindful matter but no less matter inherently embedded in immutable laws that can only ever unfold into a future that was never going to be anything other than what it can only be.

But then minds create Gods. Gods said to create us. And these Gods create us to either behave or to not behave in accordance with His will. But then other minds point out that if God is omniscient, He knows all and if He knows all then human autonomy is itself subsumed in that.

And it is here that this particular mind – this particular “I” – created a thread in order to explore how all of this is related to the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave in order that our fate on the other side of the grave might be as we imagine it to be.

Possibly. But until those religious thinkers are willing to explore a particular “I” embedded in a particular “we” embedded in a particular set of circumstances embedded in a particular historical and cultural context, what “on earth” will they be talking about?

So, sure, if anyone here bumps into religious thinkers who actually are willing to explore that part of it, by all means, send them here.

Ierrellus wrote:

Human evolution is a contentious subject.

So is religion without it. DNA creates us. We are creative beings. “Creativity is our image of God”–Nicholas Berdyaev.

Iamb,
What is there to explore in a proposition that’s a straight jacket?

Religion is an extension of authority as the first gods were kings and queens. What is monotheism but one great king god declaring all others kings and queens to be false under polytheism or paganism.

It is utilized (religion) to keep everybody in line and under firm control just as it has always done.

Notice the first shamans back to primordial times in ancient caves were the first idle class that while offering no productive labor themselves save for absurd superstition all others of the tribe were sent out to hunt for food, gather resources, and risks their lives for survival so that they could survive while doing nothing at all on a daily basis acting as spiritual advisors. Religion promotes laziness as it does lazy thinking and also is a tool utilized to reinforce serving authority or privilege. The priests, shamans, prophets, or preachers themselves of every historical era living nothing but lives of privilege off the labor and sweat of others, swindling grifters all of them. This is one of the reasons I am an atheist and not religious.

“If I have more money in my purse than meets my immediate needs, consider me a thief.”—John Wesley, a Christian. Not all religion is about privilege
See Aldous Huxley’s “The Perennial Philosophy” for a decent overview of the world’s religions. It has nothing to do with the power of kings, priests or shamans. That religion promotes laziness is a bald-faced lie. Newton was religious and worked to give us calculus and a theory of gravity, among other things. In short, the above declaration does not even give sufficient argument for one being a decent atheist. It is full of half truths that could fit either atheistic or theistic beliefs.

My point here though is not “what is there to explore” but to note a particular context in which the exploration unfolds. As that relates to our moral narrative on this side of the grave, as that relates to our imagined fate on the other side of it, as that relates to the manner in which we have come to embody God and religion.

Here and now.

In other words, in what manner do you perceive a “straight jacket”? As opposed to a straitjacket? What particular proposition relating to what particular set of circumstances?

Otherwise how am I to ground your point above in anything other than a “world of words”? A frame of mind that clearly appeals to you but one in which I don’t really have a clue regarding “what in the world” you mean.

I suppose what I was trying to express is whether or not determinism in the gene and the meme provides a straightjacket limiting anything one could say or do. Is there possible freedom of individual thought given one’s physical and mental heritage? Do I have to buy the idea of afterlife rewards or punishments?

This seems reasonable to me. Religion, when push comes to shove, revolves largely around attaining a frame of mind that allows you to accumulate just enough in the way of an emotional cushion to endure all the things that really are beyond your control. And then to assign blame – the Devil, the infidels, your own sins – regarding those things that you aren’t quite sure about.

Here though we find any number of particular contexts in which we are not able solve our problems. In other words, regardless of how much of an honest and sincere effort we put into making the attempt.

Sometimes things just overwhelm us. Bad things – terrible things – happen to good people [the true believers] all the time.

And that’s when religious narratives will shift gears and place the focus more on God’s “mysterious ways”.

We took responsibility, we tried to change things, but to no avail.

But to no avail only because it is all embodied in God’s Will.

Just as [eventually] our immortality and salvation will become the embodiment of God’s Will.

Is your latest post a reply to another thread or does it apply to this one also? Would being totally responsible for what one does or thinks somehow prevent justice from being deferred to some afterlife in many minds?

My point though is not what we have to “buy”, but the extent to which that which we have already bought “in our heads” is something that we are able to demonstrate that all reasonable folks are obligated to “buy” in turn.

That, in other words, believing something is true is not the same thing as showing others why they should believe it too.

And what else is there [relating to God] that we have “for all practical purposes” in order to exchange conversations which either facilitate or obstruct our interactions with others?

And the bottom line is that we just don’t know for sure if any of this is only as it ever could have been in a wholly determined world.

Here [just as with God] we take our leaps of faith.

Unless of course I’m wrong.

But: How on earth would I go about determining that? And how on earth would others go about demonstrating that?

After all, there are so many things here that I [b]want[/b] to be wrong about.

Basically what I do on this thread is to bring points of view that I find on other threads here.

Why? Because the points that they raise may have little or nothing to do with the manner in which I construe God and religion.

I bring their assumptions here in order to comment on them given the assumptions that I make.

Again, my narrative here revolves less around what others might imagine being “totally responsible” means as this pertains to “justice” before or after the grave, and more around how they go about connecting these dots in the course of actually living their lives – lives that precipitate conflicts relating precisely to these relationships.

Only my aim is always to embody them existentially.

Eternity is here and now, not here after anything.
Every doubt is a belief.
A God experience can be shared by those whose qualia of the experience match reasonably.
Living this life for rewards in an afterlife is self centered and not what the spiritual masters espouse.
Ecological morality provides the only antidote for man’s trashing of natural resources and constant wars.
It is easy to demand proof of spiritual matters by those who do not try to experience God.
Reason has its limitations in the head, not so in the spirit.