on discussing god and religion

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

Again, in my view, it’s not really faith we are dealing with in regard to most “God world” folks. Or, rather, in all my years of interacting with them [from both sides] it wasn’t. It is all but rock solid belief that there is a God, the God. And that of necessity it was/is their own God.

Now, I’m sure in times of travail, doubts crept in for some. And I’ve known a few who, like me, pulled out of it completely. But must were way beyond faith. Especially when they are willing to divide the world up [politically] between the righteous and infidels.

And that’s where the danger lies. In objectivism linked to God linked to an authoritarian political agenda. Up to and including the theocrats. And, up to a point, even to those secularists who treat one or another ideology or humanism as the equivalent of religion.

On the other hand, the argument goes, are not the New Atheists more or less in the same boat? Only their own understanding of God and religion is allowed to prevail in any particular discussion. Here, there, everywhere.

Sure, go ahead, challenge it. But the bottom line never goes away: moral nihilism and oblivion. Or, yeah, my own bottom line anyway. Ever and always the atheists [old and new] are stuck there. They somehow have to convince the faithful and the true believers to abandon all hope of immortality and salvation. And to abandon all attempts to propound a moral agenda that can never be more than one or another hopelessly tangled/problematic rendition of “moderation, negotiation and compromise”.

Unless, of course, as with folks like Sam Harris, you actually attempt to connect the dots between morality and science. And how is that not for all practical purposes pretty much the same thing? Okay, you won’t go to Heaven for doing the right thing “down here”, but at least science is there to tell you what all rational and virtuous folks are obligated to choose in regards to, say, abortion?

Clearly, taking into account the actual social, political and economic “situation” in which suggestions like this might be pertinent, the arguments that I raise don’t go away.

Or, perhaps, not so clearly at all? Well, all I can do here is to hear out those who see it all differently. And hope that those who still have faith in or firmly believe in God are willing to explore how that impacts the behaviors that they do choose in regard to conflicting goods “out in the world”.

As I noted previously, whether in regard to an actual religious denomination or to any other “spiritual” path, the aim of this thread is to explore the manner in which those who espouse either connect the dots existentially between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and what they believe the fate of “I” will be on the other side of it.

[b]Dharma: (in Indian religion) the eternal and inherent nature of reality, regarded in Hinduism as a cosmic law underlying right behavior and social order.

(in Buddhism) the nature of reality regarded as a universal truth taught by the Buddha; the teaching of Buddhism.

an aspect of truth or reality.[/b]

How do you understand Dharma and how is it pertinent to the behaviors that you choose insofar as you understand the relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

In a word: Huh?

Or, rather, the word that pops into my own head in reacting to “critiques” of this sort.

Think about it…

Does this or does this not sum up succinctly – for most, compellingly – why religion is still embraced by the preponderance of human beings around the globe. This is precisely the mindset that a leap of faith can provide members of the flock.

And one reason that atheists – old or new – often fail to break it down is precisely because there is no secular alternative to God. None, in any event, that comes even close to providing the same measure of comfort and consolation.

Not only that but historically there have been any number of secular alternatives that have revolved around such things as survival of the fittest, political ideology, scientism, nihilism and the like. And, ironically enough, these folks have often succeeded in bringing about only greater human pain and suffering.

And then the part about oblivion to boot.

Nope. From my frame of mind the only possible way to construe “the best of all possible worlds” sans God is in one or another political manifestation of moderation, negotiation and compromise. And look at all the turmoil that ever and always brings with it.

Not to mention the fractured and fragmented personalities like mine.

But of course Dharma sprang from other, previous, geo-political concepts, all of which precede indigenous Indic religions… religions having adopted Them. Chicken/egg / politics/religion dichotomy, solved… for India anyway.

I simply, absorb… do… and be, within the moral boundaries I set myself, which are derived from the expectations I have of myself.

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

Again, as soon as you take words of this sort out into the world of human interactions, the very meaning of the word coherent itself when made applicable to the behaviors we choose becomes increasingly more problematic. Believe in a particular God in a particular way and almost anything can be rationalized as intelligent, rational, sound.

Same with any number of secular beliefs. Interpret a political ideology or an assessment of nature to mean [and only to mean] either this or that and everyone becomes fair game: sexism, heterosexism racism, ethnocentrism.

All one needs here is the font.

On the other hand – and for all practical purposes – that is at least an answer. And it is one more than the atheists [old or new] have. They also have other “answers”: the Devil, free will, human evil. The point being to have an answer. In other words, when the alternative is an essentially meaningless existence, senseless suffering and oblivion.

This however is [to me] just another “world of words” in a philosophy magazine. Actual religionists across time historically and across the globe culturally, are able to construct and then reconstruct all manner of complex rationalizations able to make their actual lived sense of reality far more sophisticated. Given, among other things, the very different lives they have to work from.

Still, the true believer is able to convince herself that whatever God’s purpose might be in taking a loved one from her, the loved one is now with God as, in time, she will be too. And given how easy it can be for mere mortals to rationalize their behaviors, the fear of God for many is anything but “constant”. For some, you confess your sins, are forgiven, and go about the business of rationalizing more behaviors still. Between treks to the church on the Sabbath.

The behaviours I choose in life, are not based on my thoughts of the resulting consequences in my demise… why do you ponder on the resultant aspect so?

Even at the height of my allergy-induced illness, the only time such thoughts ever crossed my mind was when my health would dip dangerously low to the point of forcing my mind to ‘go there’ …but otherwise I didn’t and don’t, so why does yours constantly do?

I don’t practice my Dharma with an end result in mind… I guess I do have Ṛta (/ˈrɪtə/; Sanskrit ऋत ṛta “order, rule; truth”) in mind, and simply hope for the best.

this is an interesting read, but you may have come across it before.

Well, as I have noted time and again, I created this thread because my own fractured and fragmented “self” is unable to move much beyond human identity as the embodiment of “I” reflecting political prejudices rooted in dasein as an existential contraption. Why? Because I speculate further that in a No God world, human existence appears to me to be but an essentially meaningless trek from the cradle to the grave. Ending in oblivion.

On the other hand, those who choose God and/or religion as a font onto/into which they can anchor “I”, think about these things very differently.

So, this thread was created in order for them to note just how differently they think about them.

If, however, connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then is of little or no interest to you, I’d suggest you not participate in the discussions here. Because that is invariably what I will tug the exchanges back to.

Dharma then.

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

Talk about an existential contraption. Talk about needing an actual context.

Sure, if your life is bursting with all manner satisfaction and fulfillment. If you are young and healthy and a million miles away from death. If you are in fact reveling in the freedom to think your own thoughts, to live your own life on your own terms, God and religion can be shunted off to the back burner.

But let things start to crumble and the diagnosis be terminal and what’s all that vaunted freedom mean then? It’s not for nothing that most churches attract the old and the infirm. When meaning in your life sinks down into the circumstantial hole that you are now in and the only alternative is oblivion, being a freedom loving atheist can itself be of little consolation.

As though this sort of “rational assessment” actually sinks in with those who recognize God and religion basically as an embodiment of Pascal’s wager. It just depends on how conscious one is that this is all it is. A leap of faith. A leap that really is just that: a leap of faith.

Again, and that’s before we get to the part that Marx preferred tp stress. God used as a political devise to sustain the interest of the rich and powerful. “Keep them doped with religion” as John Lennon once assessed it.

And any number of children in any number of communities around the globe continue to be indoctrinated to sustain a belief in one or another religious dogma. And, in part, because science and the secularists still have nothing even remotely as comforting for the kids as morality here and now and immortality there and then.

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

Let’s face it, given the gap between what we think we know about the ontological explanation for existence itself and all there is to be known, a God/the God is certainly one possible explanation.

And it is the existence of the gap itself that allows us to “think up” any number of possible solutions. And the beauty of situations like this is that all one need do is to believe that what one thinks up [or others think up for you] is true.

And nature here may as well be another God. At least when it comes to its creation. How can the world around us not exist and then exist? Or is it more mind-boggling still to insist that it has always existed?

On the other hand, can’t mere mortals be just as ignorant about the creator being God? For me it always comes down to that most profound antinomy of all: Why something and not nothing? Why this something and not something else? Let’s face it, this may well be beyond the capacity of the human mind [given its evolution to date] to even grasp. Or the attempts to grasp it may well be just an inherent/necessary manifestation of nature/God itself.

On the other other hand, given human autonomy, scientists at least work with the world around us: experientially, experimentally: phenomenally.

Still, the bottom line is that science to date is not able to calibrate “the final solution”. At least not to my knowledge. That they embrace the quest empirically may allow them to speak more substantively, but that ultimate gap between what they know now and all that there is to be known doesn’t go away.

And, again, this is all in relationship to “things as they are” in the either/or world. Most scientists [in their fields] are still averse to connecting the dots between what is and what ought to be – morally, politically, spiritually. Even political “science” is must contend with dasein, conflicting goods and wealth and power.

If I do say so myself.

But why are you fractured and fragmented? What happened, that made you so and took you there?

Can you not think or feel beyond that fractured and fragmented state of self?

Yes… even as a (non-practising) RC, since birth, I am subconsciously tethered to that Faith, whether I like it or not. It played a major part in forming Me, my thoughts and feelings, and probably still does, well… I guess it does.

Iam said: “human existence appears to me to be but an essentially meaningless trek from the cradle to the grave. Ending in oblivion.“

Is that how you have lived your life? Did you not yearn to or seek out, anything otherwise and contrary to that?

Religion gives lives purpose and meaning, gained from being a part of That community, so perhaps that is the aspect you have noticed missing from your own life, that of belonging to a forming concept of self, so all you see is the end/oblivion/demise, where I instead see a continuation of I to where I am now and will be tomorrow onwards.

Have you ever sat in the back of a church, just to experience the experience?

Morality/immortality? Taking the sacraments I guess, to seal the deal with One’s god… ensuring a person their rightful place in heaven, sitting on the right hand side of Their god. That’s the primary reason for religion… following the rites and passages of your extended (religious) clan.

Dharma, rta, rights… not so much a solely religious thing as a societal one, initially spread through clans or faith-based systems… before the advent of mainstream State-ran societies and metropolises.

Do you dharma? I don’t mind if I do…

Over and again, I have made attempts to explain this. Encompassed in particular on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Here in regard to abortion.

So, let me ask you this: In regard to your own views on abortion, how are you not “fractured and fragmented”? Because clearly the moral and political objectivists among us [left and right] have managed to think themselves into believing they are in touch with the “real me” in sync with the “right thing – the only thing – to do.” And then most religious folks among us connect this dot to the one that encompasses Judgment Day. Because they did the right thing in the course of living their life on this side of the grave, God grants them access to immortality and salvation on the other side.

Right? Isn’t that how “for all practical purposes” it works?

Sure: In my interactions with others in the either/or world.

Nope, not always. I was once myself a committed Christian. And, after “transcending” religion as a result of my experiences and relationships in Vietnam, I embraced any number of secular/political renditions of objectivism: Communism, Marxism, Trotskyism, social democracy, democratic socialism. Then came William Barrett, “rival goods”, existentialism, deconstruction, semiotics, nihilism, moral nihilism.

Okay, but from my frame of mind, this is religion as an “intellectual contraption”. Which was basically the manner in which I reacted to Zinnat’s posts way back when. Instead, the aim of this thread is to bring words like that out into the world of actual human interactions. In particular, interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which various religious denomination have their own “scriptures” which very much connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then. These are the discussions I am interested in pursuing.

Yes. Only my interest on this tread is in reconfiguring that into discussions of actual chosen behaviors in particular contexts in which individuals “think through” morality and immortality in a philosophy venue. How are these “idea/ideality” dots connected existentially by individuals in the course of living their lives from day to day.

Dharma here [to me] is just another word that particular individuals come into contact with enabling some to embody it in lives that sustain meaning and purpose that sustains emotional and psychological comfort and consolation.

Here, for them, dasein doesn’t enter into it at all. And why would they want it to? After all, for me, dasein has become the source for my fractured and fragmented "person"ality in the world of value judgments and mortality.

I keep not getting your replies showing up in my ‘view unread posts‘ list, so only just seen it now… as I was scrolling through my ‘view your posts‘ list …will reply shortly.

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

Let’s face it, from the far left to the far right on the political spectrum, the best of all possible No God worlds will miraculously reflect the political prejudices of whichever ideological narrative you prefer.

But the point made by the more conservative advocates above is not at all unreasonable. Once God is taken out of the picture, mere mortals are more than capable of bringing about a world like, well, the one we live in now.

Is or is not the planet we live on owned and operated by those who eschew God and place all their eggs in the dog eat dog capitalist basket? The tyranny of capital for those who govern us by way of one or another rendition of “show me the money”?

As for secular ideology and morality? How about the 20th Century? Fascism on the right, Communism on the left. Let the dogmatic debates begin. Here for example: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=195888

Only here the squabbling tends to revolve more around genes vs. memes. Still, objectivism with or without God, embedded in either nature or nurture, the results are the same: one of us versus one of them.

On the other hand, when politics is involved, there is no getting around what is a stake: our actual lives.

Still, the world seems ever to be sustained by those who bet on God, those who bet on Reason and those bet on bank accounts. Not many folks here are “fractured and fragmented”.

Maybe, but conflicting goods going back to the pre-Socratics are no closer to being resolved. Instead, religious and secular objectivism has given way to democracy and the rule of law as [perhaps] the best of all possible worlds. Moderation, negotiation and compromise. Particularly in regard to many “social issues”. God is still around of course but most citizens are likely to embrace one of another rendition of “separation of church and state”.

Though there is always the danger that authoritarians – either God or No God, left or right – will bring this all crumbling down.

Here is one narrative:

Still, there are no doubt conservative narratives that can pick this apart point by point. Indeed, let the conservatives here among us – God or No God – do precisely that.

How it works for whom?

Abortion? It’s not something I think or worry about, either for myself or others. I have eliminated much in my mind, that is of no concern to me, so as to declutter my mind to make way for that which is… I’m constantly busy rewiring myself, you see.

What about in other worlds? I’m a neither/nor kinda type, myself.

My experiences have been more social than political… so gaining my worldly experiences through the Catholic church and in places of Catholic education, in Theatre and the Arts, in the workplace, in bars, in clubs, in exploring other countries and cultures, and now… dabbling in politics, which comes with a whole social sphere all of its own.

And now… for you, is? or you would like it to be…

Perhaps it’s an energy thing, so that our soul-energy departs the body and ends up where all dearly-departed energies are supposed to end up, in that, morality aids in achieving that mortality goal.

Even the Dharma/rta Practitioner is present/experiences dasein… albeit in various altered states of mind

exploringyourmind.com/brain-wav … pha-gamma/ according to this <<< I’m a baby or small child… as my delta-wave game is strong.

[b]“When it comes to our brain waves, the key to authentic health and happiness lies in allowing each of them to work in their way, at their frequency and at their optimum levels. We should also remember that they aren’t static. Rather, they change as we get older. So, the point isn’t to get obsessed with improving our Beta waves for better focus or our Gamma waves to get into a spiritual state.

1. Delta waves (1 to 3 Hz)
   Delta waves have the greatest wave amplitude and are related to deep but dreamless sleep. Interestingly, they are very common in babies and small children. The older we get the fewer of these brainwaves we produce. Our sleep and ability to relax gradually get worse over the years.

2. Theta waves (3.5 to 8 Hz)
   This second kind of brain waves goes from 3.5 to 8 Hz and is mostly related to imagination, reflection and sleep. Fun fact: Theta waves are more active when we’re experiencing very deep emotions.

3. Alpha waves (8 to 13 Hz)
   Alpha waves arise in those in-between, twilight times when we’re calm but not asleep. It’s when we’re relaxed and ready for meditation. When we’re on the couch watching TV or in bed relaxing, but before falling asleep.

4. Beta waves (12 to 33 Hz)
   We’ve now crossed from low/moderate brain waves to a higher level. We’re now in that higher spectrum of frequencies that come from intense neuronal activity. They’re very interesting as well as complex. They have to do with times when we’re giving our full attention, very alert and on the lookout for stimuli.

5. Gamma waves (25 to 100 Hz)
   Gamma waves are associated with high level cognitive processing tasks. They are related to our learning style, our ability to take in new information, and our senses and perceptions. For example, people with mental problems or learning difficulties tend to have less than half the usual Gamma wave activity”.[/b]

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

Just out of curiosity, among committed Christians here, what might be the most persuasive argument to explain this sort of thing?

Consider: gods-word-first.org/bible-st … ments.html

Consider futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2 … of-christ/

And around and around and around they go. The Bible used either to espouse or to eschew behaviors that fall all up and down the moral and political spectrum. You would think that this in and of itself would give pause to those who call themselves Christians. Instead, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, rationalizations abound. Suggesting it is not what is believed but that something is needed to be believed.

But where both Christians and atheists are interchangeable in my view is in how they acquire their beliefs about God and religion through the embodiment of the actual lives that they live. Different lives, different beliefs. And only after philosophers are willing to own up to the existential implications [and complications] of that, do they become aware of just how impotent philosophy is when the discussions come down out of the clouds and address actual human interactions that come into conflict over God and religion.

Explaining perhaps why so few of them ever do.

Indeed, here at ILP we are bombarded with those who have concocted these extraordinarily far out “thought up” religious dogmas that almost never make contact with the real world at all.

Yes, that’s my point. It works the way it does for some because the life that they lived predisposed them existentially to one set of political prejudices rather than another. And they came to embrace one or another religious denomination [or No God at all] in much the same way.

Thus, based on this assumption, here, in my view, is your own subjective/subjunctive conclusion “here and now”:

But: in having a new experience, or in sustaining a new relationship or in coming into contact with new information, knowledge or ideas, it can become something that you think about. It can become an important part of your life.

Now, this thread was created for those who do find one or another moral value embedded in one or another “conflicting good” of such importance that they find it very important to choose behaviors that they deem to be moral or virtuous. Why? Because, in turn, their spiritual or religious beliefs are also very important to them. Thus they are especially intent on connecting the dots between “morality here asnd now” and “immortality there and then”.

How then does that unfold for them given a particular context in which both are intertwined? And how do they react to the manner in which my own assumptions about morality and immortality are rooted more in identity, value judgments and political power.

If, however, in regard to this, you are more a “neither/nor” person, this thread is probably not for you. Not that it should be. Your own frame of mind is as reasonable to you as mine is to me. But there we are.

As for this…

Perhaps. But how would one go beyond sheer speculation and describe how, given actually experiences that they have had, this can be measured or described in more detail? And, again, what to make of situations where others who share this frame of mind insist that the manner in which you have come to embody it morally and politically is the “wrong way”? With so much at stake on both sides of the grave.

…in the old, making way for the new? The unhelpful, giving way to newer, more helpful, ways.

I am sure that there is much, intertwined in our psyche during the decision-making process in our minds… though I would think that our formative factors changed over time, and so lessening their grip on the decisions we make, over time.

Things that I cared or worried about when young, are so different to the things I currently care or worry about, and the things I worry about are even lesser in number than ever before. The mind is it’s own recycling bin, that empties itself, when approaching capacity.

We are energy, and a part of the negentropic whole, are we not? and there-in lies the answer.

Religion & Evil
Raymond Tallis has some inconclusive thoughts.

Good point. But mine is that to the extent that particular humanists come to espouse one or another political ideology or one or another deontological/philosophical contraption, is the extent to which their own views might be viewed basically as a secular religion.

You just don’t die and go on to Glory.

Bingo!

Let’s propose “large, extraordinary truths about our unique nature and the human world we have built” that are not religions but that all rational and virtuous men and women are still obligated to subscribe to if the wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings.

Oh, and while we are at it, let’s take these truths and note how they would be applicable to all of the many, many conflicting goods that have rent the species going back to the very first philosopher. All we need to agree on are the contexts.

There you go…

It’s not God or No God so much as it’s my own sacred or secular font…or else. So ironically enough a “moral case” might be made for abandoning any and all moral cases that refuse to be tolerant of different sets of assumptions regarding the “human condition”.

On the other hand, that can be no less problematic to the extent that, in abandoning the “moral case” mentality altogether, one chooses to embrace nihilism. And while certain nihilist are ready, willing and able to accept “democracy and the rule of law” as the best of all possible worlds, others attach “rules of behavior” either to wealth and power or to the agenda embraced by the sociopaths.

Then those like me who are basically drawn and quartered, able only to make subjective “leaps of faith” to that which, say, their “gut” tells them is the right thing to do. This time.

Let’s call this being “fractured and fragmented”.

You know, for now.

Religion & Evil
Raymond Tallis has some inconclusive thoughts.

My point exactly. Or, rather two of them:

1] That an objectivist frame of mind rooted in God often germinates historically into a “Kingdom of Ends” such that any and all means are rationalized in sustaining it

2] That this flows in large part from of what is at stake: immortality and salvation

On the contrary, for many of the true believers, it is far from unclear. And that’s the point when we consider such things as inquisitions and crusades and fatwas waged again the infidels. And the beauty of faith is that such things do not have to be probed much beyond the belief that ultimately such things are inherently subsumed in the “Will of God”. Then it comes down to what any particular individual has come to believe about all of this. And it is his or her belief that propels/compels the behaviors they choose.

Nothing ever really has to be demonstrated beyond the belief itself.

And, of course, in regard to 1 though 3, for the true believers and/or the faithful, the irony here is completely lost on them. They call something evil because they believe that in not calling it evil their very souls are at stake. That’s what makes it evil. And if in pursing only good things that others construe to be evil then doing battle against them [where the end justifies the means] is anything but…nihilistic?

As for 4 and 5, trust me, reacting to them is rooted existentially in dasein. Not unlike the first three.

Right, like down through the ages the particularly fierce religious zealots [of any denomination] quietly give in to this entirely reasonable point of view.

As for the rationalist theists, well, are there any here? Accumulate your own set of assumptions upon which to draw your own conclusions so that syllogistically we can resolve all this once and for all.

Religion & Evil
Raymond Tallis has some inconclusive thoughts.

And here as well you would have to probe the extent to which individuals situated out in particular worlds, interacting in particular contexts, are or are not “predisposed” existentially to voice one rather than another opinion.

Only then can the philosophers among us go about the task of setting aside the subjective/subjunctive factors in order to come up with the most reasonable way in which understand why we continue to harm each other in so many diverse ways.

The key word then being “necessarily”. There’s what people do and there’s what they feel it is necessary to do. And there is what philosophers are able to determine all rational and virtuous men and women are [necessarily] obligated to do.

But: not just up in the clouds where everything revolves around how words are defined and then ordered into intellectual assessments.

That’s always been my own point as well. Religion is just one component of human interactions. And not nearly as important as the part that revolves around political economy. After all, only to the extent that social, political and economics interactions revolve around sustaining the means of production that sustain our actual lives themselves can the focus than shift to things like morality and immortality. The anthropologist Marvin Harris – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Harris – basically focuses in on the role that material interaction plays in regards to many aspects of the “human condition” that are often attributed more to other “spiritual” things.