|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 29, 2014 14:50:04 GMT -5
That's what this thread is about. The tendency for humans to identify with themselves while imagining they're identifying with something greater. Since God does not exist apart from our imaginations looks like we're screwed. But what has your idea about suffering got to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 29, 2014 15:17:38 GMT -5
Powerful post above, maja. Thanks Great food for thought. Thanks, yknot. I am really enjoying reading everyone's thoughts on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 30, 2014 10:51:09 GMT -5
Perhaps anthropomorphic is the wrong word. Think of the survival angle...knowledge and power are important (essential?) characteristics for survival of human beings in the face of predators, enemies, and the elements. If an individual is not knowledgeable or powerful, they can benefit from the presence of other knowledgeable and powerful members of the community they are part of. A group of humans may feel reassured by the belief in a "God" who holds knowledge and power beyond the obvious human limits. In this light, omniscience and omnipotence with respect to "God" can be seen as a possible extrapolation or projection of the essential, but limited human characteristics of knowledge and power. In the absence of enemies, predators, and threatening elements (for example), would there be any need for knowledge and power? Hi matisse. I am becoming increasingly concerned that I am growing old, slow and dense. I have been thinking about your comments this morning, and haven't been able to get the pieces to snap into place. Thinking about your last statement, I can imagine some appeal to such a Utopian state, but I lack the capacity to imagine what such a world might be like. Perhaps I am blinded by the "bloody tooth and claw" aspects of the real world. Do you envision a world with no evolution or a world with a totally different evolutionary mechanism that would operate completely independent of "enemies, predators and threatening elements"? Do you image that love and beauty would provide the dynamism to vitalize a world without any need for knowledge and power? At the moment I am incapable of the conceptual leap to the world you envision but I would very much like to hear more. If I might, I would like to further explore your thesis as to beliefs in "God" being a consequence of "fight or flight" reactions to situations challenging survival. My sense is that "God" mythology proceed well beyond concerns for security and protection from the ravages of nature. Most cultures have "creation myths". Many cultures have evolved "fertility myths". Natural cyclical phenomena are often associated with some higher ordering of the cosmos. I acknowledge the psychological drive of the human species to evoke a higher presence to account for the inexplicable. This drive is used dismissively by many as incontrovertible evidence for the non-existence of "God". I also understand how the steady progress of science provides plausible explanations for phenomena previously thought to be the providence of "Gods" What I fail to grasp is how these "true statements" form a rational basis for denial of consciousness beyond that of the human species. I may be dull-witted but the assertion that there is or can be no consciousness that transcends that of the human species seems to involve a collection of unstated assumptions about the nature of reality, the nature of evolutionary processes, and the intrinsic properties of both. Does A really prove B, does A really imply B, I ask from a rigorously rational perspective.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 30, 2014 12:40:09 GMT -5
Perhaps anthropomorphic is the wrong word. Think of the survival angle...knowledge and power are important (essential?) characteristics for survival of human beings in the face of predators, enemies, and the elements. If an individual is not knowledgeable or powerful, they can benefit from the presence of other knowledgeable and powerful members of the community they are part of. A group of humans may feel reassured by the belief in a "God" who holds knowledge and power beyond the obvious human limits. In this light, omniscience and omnipotence with respect to "God" can be seen as a possible extrapolation or projection of the essential, but limited human characteristics of knowledge and power. In the absence of enemies, predators, and threatening elements (for example), would there be any need for knowledge and power? Hi matisse. I am becoming increasingly concerned that I am growing old, slow and dense. I have been thinking about your comments this morning, and haven't been able to get the pieces to snap into place. Thinking about your last statement, I can imagine some appeal to such a Utopian state, but I lack the capacity to imagine what such a world might be like. Perhaps I am blinded by the "bloody tooth and claw" aspects of the real world. Do you envision a world with no evolution or a world with a totally different evolutionary mechanism that would operate completely independent of "enemies, predators and threatening elements"? Do you image that love and beauty would provide the dynamism to vitalize a world without any need for knowledge and power? At the moment I am incapable of the conceptual leap to the world you envision but I would very much like to hear more. If I might, I would like to further explore your thesis as to beliefs in "God" being a consequence of "fight or flight" reactions to situations challenging survival. My sense is that "God" mythology proceed well beyond concerns for security and protection from the ravages of nature. Most cultures have "creation myths". Many cultures have evolved "fertility myths". Natural cyclical phenomena are often associated with some higher ordering of the cosmos. I acknowledge the psychological drive of the human species to evoke a higher presence to account for the inexplicable. This drive is used dismissively by many as incontrovertible evidence for the non-existence of "God". I also understand how the steady progress of science provides plausible explanations for phenomena previously thought to be the providence of "Gods" What I fail to grasp is how these "true statements" form a rational basis for denial of consciousness beyond that of the human species. I may be dull-witted but the assertion that there is or can be no consciousness that transcends that of the human species seems to involve a collection of unstated assumptions about the nature of reality, the nature of evolutionary processes, and the intrinsic properties of both. Does A really prove B, does A really imply B, I ask from a rigorously rational perspective. I have not explained myself well enough for you to locate me! So I will try a different approach. First, I am not denying the possibility of some consciousness beyond that of the human species. (Nor am I declaring a belief that such a consciousness exists.) I suspect because of my upbringing, the ideas of "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are deeply embedded in the part of my brain that might contemplate the existence of a consciousness "beyond" me. I am trying to push back on these because I think they represent a strong bias in my thinking. I consider the possibility that what I am trying to say will end up seeming completely trivial to you. If "consciousness beyond human" exists, is it possible that some aspects of human consciousness are outside of the realm of that "consciousness"?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 30, 2014 13:08:07 GMT -5
In the absence of enemies, predators, and threatening elements (for example), would there be any need for knowledge and power? Thinking about your last statement, I can imagine some appeal to such a Utopian state, but I lack the capacity to imagine what such a world might be like. Perhaps I am blinded by the "bloody tooth and claw" aspects of the real world. Do you envision a world with no evolution or a world with a totally different evolutionary mechanism that would operate completely independent of "enemies, predators and threatening elements"? Do you image that love and beauty would provide the dynamism to vitalize a world without any need for knowledge and power? At the moment I am incapable of the conceptual leap to the world you envision but I would very much like to hear more. Yknot, it may help for me to clarify that the question I pose above is not about some Utopian state, rather it is directed toward the possibility of a "higher consciousness" that is not encumbered in any way with a struggle to survive.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 30, 2014 18:37:41 GMT -5
If "consciousness beyond human" exists, is it possible that some aspects of human consciousness are outside of the realm of that "consciousness"? Herein lies what I perceive to be the crux of much ill-ease, uncertainty, anxiousness and what "Cool Hand Luke" might have referred to as "a failure to communicate". I think you have put your finger on the issue, precisely. Like yours, my thinking is conditional . . . . "If 'consciousness beyond human' exists . . . ". I acknowledge that I favor the probability that such consciousness does exist. But no matter how much I may favor that probability, knowledge/understanding of that consciousness (almost by definition) must lie outside of my realm of consciousness, as you point out. It is precisely because of this line of thought that I am hesitant to assign anthropomorphic images to such an entity or to personify that entity. But how can "mere mortals" share experiences/questions of such profound relevance (importance (?)) without an appropriate/adequate vocabulary? Willingness to favor the probability of a higher consciousness, opens up (for me) avenues of learning and growth that go beyond the generally accepted bounds of "evidence-based" experience. Intuition, inspired insight of elders ("sacred texts/myths"), meditation ("prayer"), perhaps even some aspects of phenomena that might be dismissed as paranormal, might all contribute a mosaic of understanding and comprehension that could lead an individual or even a species to greater participation in the welfare of all. Might it be possible to slip the surly bonds of empiricism and tap a deeper source of wisdom?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 30, 2014 19:05:03 GMT -5
Herein lies what I perceive to be the crux of much ill-ease, uncertainty, anxiousness and what "Cool Hand Luke" might have referred to as "a failure to communicate". I think you have put your finger on the issue, precisely. Like yours, my thinking is conditional . . . . "If 'consciousness beyond human' exists . . . ". I acknowledge that I favor the probability that such consciousness does exist. But no matter how much I may favor that probability, knowledge/understanding of that consciousness (almost by definition) must lie outside of my realm of consciousness, as you point out. It is precisely because of this line of thought that I am hesitant to assign anthropomorphic images to such an entity or to personify that entity. But how can "mere mortals" share experiences/questions of such profound relevance (importance (?)) without an appropriate/adequate vocabulary? Willingness to favor the probability of a higher consciousness, opens up (for me) avenues of learning and growth that go beyond the generally accepted bounds of "evidence-based" experience. Intuition, inspired insight of elders ("sacred texts/myths"), meditation ("prayer"), perhaps even some aspects of phenomena that might be dismissed as paranormal, might all contribute a mosaic of understanding and comprehension that could lead an individual or even a species to greater participation in the welfare of all. Might it be possible to slip the surly bonds of empiricism and tap a deeper source of wisdom? What would be the source of this wisdom? This sounds like an argument for the existence of a higher power/consciousness beyond human understanding or perception by acknowledging that there is no way to experience or understand this 'entity'. It reminds me of other arguments for undefinable and unmeasurable things. Examples would include phlogiston or aether.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 30, 2014 19:48:35 GMT -5
What an interesting thread. I have been slowly working my way through it today and have enjoyed the many perspectives, questions and possibilities. At one point my thoughts were that we live in an existence where everything that exists is 'one thing' with each individual aspect of that 'one thing' being different representations of the 'whole'. In a sense that would mean there was no creator/God, but rather everything being responsible for what is by being a part of the 'whole' that makes up all that is in it's many different aspects and forms. I understand what your concern is Ynot about labeling and/or defining God with human characteristics and attributes. It tends to make God into a superior being. This negates the significance of all that is and makes it less than. I believe everything has the same significance and value in the nature of things. Every aspect of the whole is equally important. It is all intrinsically connected and allows what is to be. Having said that, I don't believe that anymore. At least not in the context of there being a meaning to all of this anyway. I now see everything as being a product of the universe. If the universe had been different, we would also have been different. We like to think that we have some special place in this universe and that if things had been just a tiny bit different life as we know it could not exist. And, that is true in the sense that yes, everything would be different from what it is now. And, if we did happen to have awareness in the product of that universe, we would likely think the same thing we think now. That this universe is somehow made for our specific kind of life. And, different as it would be from the existence we now know, it would not be specially designed with us in mind, but we would just be the product of what it is. So since my change in perspective, I have realized that there really isn't any meaning to life. At least not one that is required by a superior being. I think all meaning that I get from life is how I view life. I create the meaning that has value to me. I believe we all do that and that is why there is no one way of expressing that. Each individual has to create meaning in their lives that they can value. Someone else's values may be the same as yours in some ways, but they would never be anything but unique to you, even with similarities. We can presume to understand what the meaning of Love, Compassion etc mean to others, but we can never completely understand what they mean to someone else. So life is an individual journey, we create the meaning in our lives so that we can exist. For me, going from that place where religion dictated the meaning of life to a place where I decided my own meaning of life, was a difficult transition. It was not unlike an identity crisis. I have made value decisions in my life that give me the best feelings. I have chosen love for others, compassion for others and honesty and integrity in my dealings with others. From my life experience, these values have brought me the most happiness and have hopefully enhanced the lives of others also. Realizing that these things were what was important in my life to bring happiness and value into my life and other's lives, gave my life meaning after giving up the belief there was a God that required these things from me in order for me to have a comfortable after life. I no longer believed in an afterlife and so that made me rethink many things. I found out that my values were the same in many ways that they had been when I did believe in God. They were just values I held for different reasons. I was going to find fault with the post and comment sentence by sentence but unfortunately I agree with it. So I will limit my comments to the use of Ynot instead of placid-void!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 30, 2014 20:51:21 GMT -5
"It is a whole different story for me to say what I do believe. Honesty compels me to say . . . . "I do not know". I seem to be stuck in a permanent state of seeking but that state disables commitment. This concerns me." I would like to make a comment on your statement, "It is a whole different story for me to say what I do believe. Honesty compels me to say . . . . "I do not know". I seem to be stuck in a permanent state of seeking but that state disables commitment. This concerns me." You have also mentioned words like "angst" and our "purpose" .
I can only express my own experience in arriving at the point where I am an atheist & no longer believe a superior supernatural being that is called GOD
I believe that the reason people use the concepts of “God” in "human terms" is simply because that they created their god or gods in their own image. The Greeks & Romans created their gods based on the more nature-like gods left over from their ancestors more primitive "nature" gods.
The Hebrews created a war-like god because that is what they needed at that place & time in the history of humankind. That kind of "warrior" god gave them the right to take over the lands of the people surrounding them.
I know the angst I went through and the questions that I also asked myself about our purpose in life if there was no GOD. Any thoughtful person that would like to make the most of their life and want to make some kind of commitment certainly would be concerned about their purpose.
I arrived at the conclusion there is no "set in concrete" purpose for us to be here, no set purpose in any grand scheme of things. That may be depressing but also humbling.
It takes us down off any high place that we have placed ourselves as the center of creation!
The only purpose that I could see was for us to make a purpose.
Thinking about what I wanted for my self was a state of peace & justice, therefore, that should be what I would want for everyone else in the world. That would therefore, be my "purpose" in life.
I got busy working the best that I could toward those ends. I wish I could say that I have been howling success in accomplishing that, but I'm can't.
Never-the-less, with my drop in the bucket along many like minded people I have seen small successes.
That is only my own experience with the questions surrounding purpose in life & making a commitment towards that purpose
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 30, 2014 20:51:54 GMT -5
If "consciousness beyond human" exists, is it possible that some aspects of human consciousness are outside of the realm of that "consciousness"? Herein lies what I perceive to be the crux of much ill-ease, uncertainty, anxiousness and what "Cool Hand Luke" might have referred to as "a failure to communicate". I think you have put your finger on the issue, precisely. Like yours, my thinking is conditional . . . . "If 'consciousness beyond human' exists . . . ". I acknowledge that I favor the probability that such consciousness does exist. But no matter how much I may favor that probability, knowledge/understanding of that consciousness (almost by definition) must lie outside of my realm of consciousness, as you point out. It is precisely because of this line of thought that I am hesitant to assign anthropomorphic images to such an entity or to personify that entity. But how can "mere mortals" share experiences/questions of such profound relevance (importance (?)) without an appropriate/adequate vocabulary? Willingness to favor the probability of a higher consciousness, opens up (for me) avenues of learning and growth that go beyond the generally accepted bounds of "evidence-based" experience. Intuition, inspired insight of elders ("sacred texts/myths"), meditation ("prayer"), perhaps even some aspects of phenomena that might be dismissed as paranormal, might all contribute a mosaic of understanding and comprehension that could lead an individual or even a species to greater participation in the welfare of all. I think you set up a false dichotomy here. One can favor the improbability of a higher consciousness and at the same time not be limited to what you term "accepted bounds of 'evidence-based' experience." Maybe. I'm not sure who is "bound by empiricism." I believe it is also possible that any "deeper source of wisdom" tapped will turn out to be ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 30, 2014 20:56:37 GMT -5
Hi, snow! so glad to see you back!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 30, 2014 21:02:49 GMT -5
What an interesting thread. I have been slowly working my way through it today and have enjoyed the many perspectives, questions and possibilities. At one point my thoughts were that we live in an existence where everything that exists is 'one thing' with each individual aspect of that 'one thing' being different representations of the 'whole'. In a sense that would mean there was no creator/God, but rather everything being responsible for what is by being a part of the 'whole' that makes up all that is in it's many different aspects and forms. I understand what your concern is Ynot about labeling and/or defining God with human characteristics and attributes. It tends to make God into a superior being. This negates the significance of all that is and makes it less than. I believe everything has the same significance and value in the nature of things. Every aspect of the whole is equally important. It is all intrinsically connected and allows what is to be. Having said that, I don't believe that anymore. At least not in the context of there being a meaning to all of this anyway. I now see everything as being a product of the universe. If the universe had been different, we would also have been different. We like to think that we have some special place in this universe and that if things had been just a tiny bit different life as we know it could not exist. And, that is true in the sense that yes, everything would be different from what it is now. And, if we did happen to have awareness in the product of that universe, we would likely think the same thing we think now. That this universe is somehow made for our specific kind of life. And, different as it would be from the existence we now know, it would not be specially designed with us in mind, but we would just be the product of what it is. So since my change in perspective, I have realized that there really isn't any meaning to life. At least not one that is required by a superior being. I think all meaning that I get from life is how I view life. I create the meaning that has value to me. I believe we all do that and that is why there is no one way of expressing that. Each individual has to create meaning in their lives that they can value. Someone else's values may be the same as yours in some ways, but they would never be anything but unique to you, even with similarities. We can presume to understand what the meaning of Love, Compassion etc mean to others, but we can never completely understand what they mean to someone else. So life is an individual journey, we create the meaning in our lives so that we can exist. For me, going from that place where religion dictated the meaning of life to a place where I decided my own meaning of life, was a difficult transition. It was not unlike an identity crisis. I have made value decisions in my life that give me the best feelings. I have chosen love for others, compassion for others and honesty and integrity in my dealings with others. From my life experience, these values have brought me the most happiness and have hopefully enhanced the lives of others also. Realizing that these things were what was important in my life to bring happiness and value into my life and other's lives, gave my life meaning after giving up the belief there was a God that required these things from me in order for me to have a comfortable after life. I no longer believed in an afterlife and so that made me rethink many things. I found out that my values were the same in many ways that they had been when I did believe in God. They were just values I held for different reasons. You express this so well, snow. You describe an evolution of beliefs/point of view very similar to my own. Great to see you posting again!!!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 30, 2014 23:21:19 GMT -5
Tough diagnosis there Doc! I have to run out and demonstrate to myself that my schizotypal personality symptoms are temporarily in remission by playing a round of league golf with my "partner" and then going to the alley to start the season bowling league with my "team". Perhaps my caregiver will allow me to skip a week of medication as long as I work and play well with others. What do you think Doc? As a nurse, I would say be sure to take your medicine, "religiously."
As the mother who has very interesting conversations with her daughter who has a degree in Philosophy, -I would ask you whether your degree in philosophy or theology or both?
Also noting your signature on your profile page:Intellego ut credam Credo ut intellegam Credo ut intelligamFrom Wiki Credo ut intelligam (alternatively spelled Credo ut intellegam) is Latin for "I believe so that I may understand" and is a maxim of Anselm of Canterbury (Proslogion, 1), which is based on a saying of Augustine of Hippo (crede, ut intelligas, "believe so that you may understand"; Tract. Ev. Jo., 29.6) to relate faith and reason. In Anselm's writing, it is placed in juxtaposition to its converse, intellego ut credam ("I think so that I may believe"), when he says Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam ("I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but rather, I believe in order that I may understand"). It is often associated with Anselm's other famous phrase fides quaerens intellectum ("faith seeking understanding").
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 1, 2014 8:15:52 GMT -5
Being made in his image, it is natural that people would personify God. The suffering Christ put this tendency into check by placing greater scrutiny upon our motivations, to the end that we would identify with what is most real in ourselves and others. This is a perspective that I have not heard expressed before. Could you say more about this idea Lee? Could you expand on how "the suffering Christ put this tendency into check"? Briefly ..... Christ lived an unconventional life, spoke the unconventional truth, and died an unconventional death at the crossroads of a politically, religiously, culturally, and economically-charged scene, as scene that might typify our world today. His actions and words challenged the altruism of our pursuits and passions and beliefs about God. Historically, some of us reacted with violence and expedience, still others founded a memorial religion that continues to this day.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 1, 2014 9:04:38 GMT -5
Wow, what a smorgasburg of deep, sincere and meaningful thought was expressed overnight. Reading through the posts this morning has given me a whole new appreciation of "my cup runneth over".
Thanks to each and everyone who has contributed to this thread. The sense of community I feel while participating on this thread defies description so I will merely say thanks and continue on.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 1, 2014 9:37:47 GMT -5
I can only express my own experience in arriving at the point where I am an atheist & no longer believe a superior supernatural being that is called GOD I believe that the reason people use the concepts of “God” in "human terms" is simply because that they created their god or gods in their own image.The Greeks & Romans created their gods based on the more nature-like gods left over from their ancestors more prim itive "nature" gods. The Hebrews created a war-like god beca use that is what they needed at that place & time in the history of humankind. That kind of "warrior" god gave them the right to take over the lands of the people surrounding them. I know the angst I went through and the questions that I also asked myself about our purpose in life i f there was no GOD. Any thoughtful person that would like to make the most of their life and want to make some kind of commitment certainly would be concerned about their purpose.
I arrived at the conclusion there is no "set in concrete" purpose for us to be here , no set purpose in any grand scheme of things. That may be depressing but also humbling. It takes us down off any high place that we have placed ourselves as the center of creation!The only purpose that I could see was for us to make a purpose.Thinking about what I wanted for my self was a state of peace & justice, therefore, that should be what I would want for everyone else in the world. That would therefore, be my "purpose" in life. I got busy working the best that I could toward those ends. I wish I could say that I have been howling success in accomplishing tha t, but I'm can't. Never-the-less, with my drop in the bucket along many like minded people I have seen small successes. That is only my own experience with the questions surrounding purpose in life & making a commitment towards that purposeDMG, I really appreciate this post. I admit to having difficulty from time to time understanding some of your comments but this post somehow gives me a much better grasp of your perspective and I thank you for that. Our experiences have led us to rather different perspectives but somehow I find both joy and comfort in the knowledge of kindred spirits all engaged in a common quest. Regarding your other comments, no, neither philosophy nor theology. Paraphrasing Sam Ervin, 'I'm just a poor, ol' country biochemist . . . ."
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 1, 2014 11:33:38 GMT -5
I think you set up a false dichotomy here. One can favor the improbability of a higher consciousness and at the same time not be limited to what you term "accepted bounds of 'evidence-based' experience." Maybe. I'm not sure who is "bound by empiricism." I believe it is also possible that any "deeper source of wisdom" tapped will turn out to be ourselves. You may well be correct here, matisse. Perhaps the approach I take is the consequence of a false dichotomy. The goals I seek are aspirational. I seek something that cannot be described. I seek something that, perhaps, may not exist. As has been alluded to in earlier posts, stepping away from or beyond (?) evidence-based experience can be perceived as fanciful. Allegories abound in mythology with this type of imagery and the process intrigues me. From my perspective, the intellectual down-side is so minimal (I am not signing away my birthright to sanity (at least I don't think I am)). Why not sincerely ask "what if" questions. Why not acknowledge uncertainty and personally experience faith without an anticipation of reward? My fear of being bound by empiricism is much greater than my fear of error in search of deeper meaning. I am at a stage of life where not asking the question is a more significant threat than assuming the answer. Indeed, I suspect the "deeper source of wisdom" does lie within, but for me much work lies ahead to access that wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 1, 2014 19:41:51 GMT -5
I think you set up a false dichotomy here. One can favor the improbability of a higher consciousness and at the same time not be limited to what you term "accepted bounds of 'evidence-based' experience." Maybe. I'm not sure who is "bound by empiricism." I believe it is also possible that any "deeper source of wisdom" tapped will turn out to be ourselves. You may well be correct here, matisse. Perhaps the approach I take is the consequence of a false dichotomy. The goals I seek are aspirational. I seek something that cannot be described. I seek something that, perhaps, may not exist. As has been alluded to in earlier posts, stepping away from or beyond (?) evidence-based experience can be perceived as fanciful. Allegories abound in mythology with this type of imagery and the process intrigues me. From my perspective, the intellectual down-side is so minimal (I am not signing away my birthright to sanity (at least I don't think I am)). Why not sincerely ask "what if" questions. Why not acknowledge uncertainty and personally experience faith without an anticipation of reward? My fear of being bound by empiricism is much greater than my fear of error in search of deeper meaning. I am at a stage of life where not asking the question is a more significant threat than assuming the answer. Indeed, I suspect the "deeper source of wisdom" does lie within, but for me much work lies ahead to access that wisdom. I am not questioning your aspirations, yknot. When I read this: Willingness to favor the probability of a higher consciousness, opens up (for me) avenues of learning and growth that go beyond the generally accepted bounds of "evidence-based" experience. Intuition, inspired insight of elders ("sacred texts/myths"), meditation ("prayer"), perhaps even some aspects of phenomena that might be dismissed as paranormal, might all contribute a mosaic of understanding and comprehension that could lead an individual or even a species to greater participation in the welfare of all.I wondered if you were assuming that folks who do not think it likely that there is a "higher consciousness" are closed to things like intuition, interest in sacred texts and myths, meditation, etc.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 1, 2014 20:43:27 GMT -5
I can only express my own experience in arriving at the point where I am an atheist & no longer believe a superior supernatural being that is called GOD I believe that the reason people use the concepts of “God” in "human terms" is simply because that they created their god or gods in their own image.The Greeks & Romans created their gods based on the more nature-like gods left over from their ancestors more prim itive "nature" gods. The Hebrews created a war-like god beca use that is what they needed at that place & time in the history of humankind. That kind of "warrior" god gave them the right to take over the lands of the people surrounding them. I know the angst I went through and the questions that I also asked myself about our purpose in life i f there was no GOD. Any thoughtful person that would like to make the most of their life and want to make some kind of commitment certainly would be concerned about their purpose.
I arrived at the conclusion there is no "set in concrete" purpose for us to be here , no set purpose in any grand scheme of things. That may be depressing but also humbling. It takes us down off any high place that we have placed ourselves as the center of creation!The only purpose that I could see was for us to make a purpose.Thinking about what I wanted for my self was a state of peace & justice, therefore, that should be what I would want for everyone else in the world. That would therefore, be my "purpose" in life. I got busy working the best that I could toward those ends. I wish I could say that I have been howling success in accomplishing tha t, but I'm can't. Never-the-less, with my drop in the bucket along many like minded people I have seen small successes. That is only my own experience with the questions surrounding purpose in life & making a commitment towards that purposeDMG, I really appreciate this post. I admit to having difficulty from time to time understanding some of your comments but this post somehow gives me a much better grasp of your perspective and I thank you for that. Our experiences have led us to rather different perspectives but somehow I find both joy and comfort in the knowledge of kindred spirits all engaged in a common quest. Regarding your other comments, no, neither philosophy nor theology. Paraphrasing Sam Ervin, 'I'm just a poor, ol' country biochemist . . . ." Thank you.
For me it isn't about the "joy and comfort" of being engaged in a common quest. It is true that a person does feel a certain "joy and comfort" in being a part of a quest, but the important issue is the QUEST itself.
Will the "quest" be an advancement for humanity ?
Is the quest done in a practical manner than shows what is referred to as "love " for humanity? (Love a word I find much used & little understood)
Just saying the words, "love", "compassion", doesn't mean a lot unless they are shown in action.
PS:
(yeh, sure you are! -'just a poor, ol' country biochemist . . . .")
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 1, 2014 21:13:26 GMT -5
I am not questioning your aspirations, yknot. When I read this: Willingness to favor the probability of a higher consciousness, opens up (for me) avenues of learning and growth that go beyond the generally accepted bounds of "evidence-based" experience. Intuition, inspired insight of elders ("sacred texts/myths"), meditation ("prayer"), perhaps even some aspects of phenomena that might be dismissed as paranormal, might all contribute a mosaic of understanding and comprehension that could lead an individual or even a species to greater participation in the welfare of all.I wondered if you were assuming that folks who do not think it likely that there is a "higher consciousness" are closed to things like intuition, interest in sacred texts and myths, meditation, etc. Matisse, I am not sure how to communicate my meaning any more clearly. ". . . opens up (for me) avenues . . ." is about as specific as I can get. I hope you can appreciate that I cannot enumerate every experience that conditions my specific worldview at this moment in time, but they have been many and varied. I was B&R in the F&W community so that has conditioned some of my thought processes. My training and career have been in the sciences, conditioning my thought processes in different ways. I am a "people watcher" that conditions my perspective. I enjoy reading non-fiction, mostly history, that shapes my outlook on life. I really enjoy taking courses on-line, that influences how I analyze situations. As is evident from this thread I get a kick out of conversations and discussions that probe beneath the surface of challenging questions. I have become fascinated with the unique and complex personalities of our pets. During the summer I can be found from time to time lying on my back staring straight up into the night sky, as far as I know my mind is blank, I am merely awed. I go to yoga class from time to time. I enjoy the competition of sports. I enjoy volunteering. Sometimes I vacuum, sometimes I build things from wood. I vote. Sum all these experiences (the majority of which are common to most people) and what conclusions can be reached concerning my views about a "higher consciousness"? None. The way I do the math I am unable to say much about my own views so I can assure you it is quite unlikely I will make assumptions about what anyone else thinks about the topic, although highly probable that I will ask them if I can find the right words to use. The frame of reference that I personally use today is one that favors the probability that a consciousness greater in capacity and complexity than my own, exists. I have zero material evidence to support that belief. To sustain the belief, therefore, I must have faith in the belief. At this moment, I do. To process experiences through a lens of faith rather than a lens of empirical evidence is a different, unusual, occasionally uncomfortable experience for me. One consequence of remaining with that discomfort is a type of growth that I have not previously experienced. Building any sort of understanding on a platform of faith rather than a foundation of tangible evidence leaves me feeling vulnerable, lonely and uncertain. At the moment, I find the benefit to be worth the cost. It alters the way I perceive self. I am a fan of Joseph Campbell. He interprets a Japanese saying: "ge, ri, mu gai" as "individual realm, general realm, no resistance". It is the question: "Am I the consciousness? or "Am I the vehicle of the consciousness?" I would be unable to engage the intrigue of that contemplation were I to remain wedded to evidence-based experience, as trained. I hope this brief summary helps dispel any anxiety as to assumptions about other folks, that type of work is well beyond my pay grade.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Oct 1, 2014 21:26:02 GMT -5
I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Thank you yknot for starting the thread. My thoughts about life and beyond have changed considerably the past two years. While reading and considering the posts made on this thread I have formed a few questions and would appreciate responses from any who are willing to express them.
1) I hear the word "paranormal" used frequently. In truth, what IS normal? Can anyone honestly define "normal"? Is our perception of "normal" something we have created from our limited experience? 2) What is "perfection"? Can anyone honestly define "perfection"? Again, is our perception of perfection a result of our personal biases? 3) What is "truth"? Can anyone honestly define "truth"? 4) What is honesty if nothing more than a point of view or conclusion based on one's observation?
I feel so connected with many who have expressed their thoughts on this thread. I hope you'll continue to share.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2014 21:38:48 GMT -5
While reading and considering the posts made on this thread I have formed a few questions and would appreciate responses from any who are willing to express them. 1) I hear the word "paranormal" used frequently. In truth, what IS normal? Can anyone honestly define "normal"? Is our perception of "normal" something we have created from our limited experience? I have been known to use this term. When I do I am, unless stated differently, using the common definition of the word. Paranormal events are events that can not readily be explained by the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.A person levitating would be an example of a paranormal event. Extrasensory perception would be another.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 1, 2014 22:27:19 GMT -5
This is a perspective that I have not heard expressed before. Could you say more about this idea Lee? Could you expand on how "the suffering Christ put this tendency into check"? Briefly ..... Christ lived an unconventional life, spoke the unconventional truth, and died an unconventional death at the crossroads of a politically, religiously, culturally, and economically-charged scene, as scene that might typify our world today. His actions and words challenged the altruism of our pursuits and passions and beliefs about God. Historically, some of us reacted with violence and expedience, still others founded a memorial religion that continues to this day. Lee, That is an interesting observation.
Jesus (he was made into The Christ later) as a Jew, certainly did live at a time that was, as you say, at the crossroads for the Jewish people. The destruction of the temple & diaspora of the Jewish people came just some 30 years after his death. However, the Jewish people had been at many crossroads through out their history before.
I do not see, however, that Jesus life or death was that "unconventional" for that time. History shows that many would-be messiahs led the kind of life he did and died the same as he did.
The people were longing for someone who would bring them out of the bondage from the Romans and many seem to have thought that was their destiny.
When you realize that what he was said to have spoken was basically narrated by the gospel writers, we can't even be sure that it his own "Truth."
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 1, 2014 22:39:12 GMT -5
I don’t mean to talk about wars and politics, but just to illustrate how, as religion becomes a family or societal tradition, it loses the radical quality it had in the beginning. As it is simply passed down to each consecutive generation, what to the first generation was a fresh loaf of bread, for the next generation has turned stale, but they probably won’t even realize it because that’s what they are used to eating. To know what fresh bread tastes like, every person has to knead his own loaf. But that is not comfortable, easy or even encouraged. One has to get beyond the comfort zone of familiar religious culture, traditions and form, all of which obscure radical truths. One has to seek God all alone and not be afraid to think that God is not found in traditions and form, and that maybe they are just idolatry. Verses: “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you," and “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God,” are often quoted to potential converts, but they are really meant for everyone. Very interesting, Maja, and thanks! Perhaps this is somewhat related to what I have told people in regard to my ancestors (some grandparents and some great-grandparents) who were the initial persons to meet the workers in my family. Part of my own difficulty in leaving meetings was in knowing that the meetings were meaningful to them, as they made difficult choices in separating from the Lutheran church (my maternal grandfather, from Norway) and the Dutch Reformed church (my paternal grandmother's parents). The Reformers who founded these churches had engaged deeply with scripture and wrestled to find something for themselves, yet the centuries have rather formalized these doctrines, which can be used rather "cheaply" and/or "severely." But the meetings, which had been liberating for my ancestors, had become largely a formality in my experience, and I then needed to take steps toward a new freedom, in response to God. However, it does seem to me that the scripture - and the call to Abraham that you mentioned is one I was intending to quote! - asks of any individual what I view as a "radical" departure from whatever seems secure in that particular time and place - family, land, place, and in our present milieu what we term "financial security," which is also reflected in what Jesus required of several individuals. It seems to me that we have removed the radical quality by speaking of it as a "limited commission," as well as in the manner that workers have made it a rather rigid practice that no longer requires any real faith (although always taking orders from someone else, living celibate, etc. is definitely not "fun" either!). Perhaps the "radicalness" is only truly realized through what God requires of each individual, which can hardly be known by another? I would like to hear more of your perceptions of this . . . I'll have to read Bonhoffer again and see if he seems more radical now than 20 years ago! I eagerly await your relections!
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 1, 2014 23:11:34 GMT -5
The concepts of "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are striking me as being anthropomorphic. Knowledge and power are important for human leadership and survival. I apologize if I state the obvious or if I am disrupting the flow of the thread. I just hadn't thought about it quite this way before. Matisse, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the terms "omniscience" and "omnipotence," and I do not feel that our use of these words accords with the Biblical picture of God, but they are rather more useful in support of our own hierarchical uses of power and authority. This also leads to absurd questions like "If God can do anything, can He make something He can't do?" Scripturally, God is of course infinitely more "powerful" than humanity, and can "see" far beyond our limited scope, yet it is a power not bent on destruction, but intent on creating a way to open hearts and minds. I was thinking recently about "vengeance," which is a very anthropomorphic trait, and yes, when we take it in our hands, our purpose is to "get even," or "get the best." But scripture again shows God sometimes using one nation or another to "punish" Israel, yet it was done in hope of a change of heart. To me, God is transforming "vengeance" itself, the reason He is not allowing us to keep it in our hands, where it is very destructive. Often, when God speaks of his strength, it is to let humans know that all their conniving and manipulating is not going to bring the results they hope for, while God can plan both means and end, which are woven together and far better than we could plan. Anyway, what am I attempting to say? It seems to me that we assign anthropomorphic qualities to God, and then apply them in our own persons and institutions. We do "create" God in our own image, but I rather feel these are idols or false gods, the existence of which does not preclude a "living God" speaking to individuals, and using - but transforming - these anthropomorphic images as well. After all, being in a physical body, how would God talk to us about Himself without using concepts we can relate to? We are speaking of an "other" with whom we can relate, and not about a "Oneness" concept, or Nirvana (and I am not speaking derogatorily of these ideas).
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 1, 2014 23:22:00 GMT -5
Yes, suffering has been challenging to the way I see God. Theologians (some) ask us why good things happen to bad people, but the story of Job relentlessly asks, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Not simply I have determined. Being made in his image, it is natural that people would personify God. The suffering Christ put this tendency into check by placing greater scrutiny upon our motivations, to the end that we would identify with what is most real in ourselves and others. I believe there is an initial, frequently asked question: "Why does God allow suffering, if He is omnipotent?" But God has allowed us freedom, and we insist on blaming God for choices we make, situations we bring about. If God used His power to make all things work out nicely, wouldn't we then be akin to robots? I see God as choosing to limit his own power and freedom in order to give us freedom to choose - and to learn! And then the questions you pose: "Why do good things happen to bad people, and bad things to good people?" I see in this God retaining his own freedom - not to be arbitrary in His treatment of individuals, but to use situations to show us what He is. Humans cannot "own" God, or make Him "useful," using a specific technique or method to obtain the desired results. God works in freedom, inviting us to respond to His command, blessing in the manner and time He feels best, allowing experiences that drive us more deeply into experience with Him . . .
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 1, 2014 23:25:10 GMT -5
I am thoroughly enjoying this thread too! But I'm also having a difficult time keeping up . . .
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 2, 2014 0:16:01 GMT -5
Yes, suffering has been challenging to the way I see God. Theologians (some) ask us why good things happen to bad people, but the story of Job relentlessly asks, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Not simply I have determined. Being made in his image, it is natural that people would personify God. The suffering Christ put this tendency into check by placing greater scrutiny upon our motivations, to the end that we would identify with what is most real in ourselves and others. I believe there is an initial, frequently asked question: "Why does God allow suffering, if He is omnipotent?" But God has allowed us freedom, and we insist on blaming God for choices we make, situations we bring about. If God used His power to make all things work out nicely, wouldn't we then be akin to robots? I see God as choosing to limit his own power and freedom in order to give us freedom to choose - and to learn! Indeed! "I was born in a cult!!!!" .... and that explains why I am who I am! But God is provident over cults and every other objectionable experience known to humans and we can determine our reaction to these! And then the questions you pose: "Why do good things happen to bad people, and bad things to good people?" I see in this God retaining his own freedom - not to be arbitrary in His treatment of individuals, but to use situations to show us what He is. Humans cannot "own" God, or make Him "useful," using a specific technique or method to obtain the desired results. God works in freedom, inviting us to respond to His command, blessing in the manner and time He feels best, allowing experiences that drive us more deeply into experience with Him . . . Absolutely!
|
|