Existential Comfort Without God(nautil.us)
nautil.us
Existential Comfort Without God
https://nautil.us/issue/106/intelligent-life/existential-comfort-without-god
83 comments
Fortunately there's a lot more to it, the linked article discusses the difference between believing in something and thinking it's true, juxtaposing that with questions of what offers us most comfort in the face of existential dread.
I've just read the entirety of the article looking for the culture war flamebait invective you've described and I'm not really finding it, what in particular is an issue? Conflation of belief in the supernatural with belief in magic?
I've just read the entirety of the article looking for the culture war flamebait invective you've described and I'm not really finding it, what in particular is an issue? Conflation of belief in the supernatural with belief in magic?
You can't bring me existentiality on a plate or show me its molecular structure under an electron microscope. It is just as supernatural as anything else.
Which means that the "magic" talk is not about drawing a line between things that are subject to the natural laws and things that are beyond natural laws, it is solely about looking down on another group of people. I happen to be of the opinion that looking down on people shouldn't set the tone around here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Which means that the "magic" talk is not about drawing a line between things that are subject to the natural laws and things that are beyond natural laws, it is solely about looking down on another group of people. I happen to be of the opinion that looking down on people shouldn't set the tone around here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Seems like one of the typical arguments of the form "change the denotation, but retain the connotation." I had an on-line discussion with a pro-abortion person a few months ago, in which the central point turned into a debate over the meaning of "parasite." The other person's claim was that a fetus/ unborn baby was a parasite, by (her) definition. My reply was that defining a connotation-laden term like "parasite" so as to include fetuses was evading the real question.
And in this example, it's defining a term that more or less all of us agree is fakery ("magic") to include belief in a higher power. (And without any reference to Clarke's third law.)
So yes, flame bait.
And in this example, it's defining a term that more or less all of us agree is fakery ("magic") to include belief in a higher power. (And without any reference to Clarke's third law.)
So yes, flame bait.
> "change the denotation, but retain the connotation"
This would also probably be the most pithy characterization of the heresy of modernism I have come across.
This would also probably be the most pithy characterization of the heresy of modernism I have come across.
[deleted]
It's not really a culture war topic. The article is asking what a humanist/atheist can do to extract meaning given this study finding: "participants only had to moderately agree that a religious explanation was true to find it as emotionally, morally, and personally good as a scientific explanation that was strongly agreed to be true."
I agree that the specific sentence you highlight ("a belief in magic") was badly chosen, but that aside, I didn't think the rest of the article was condescending on insulting to people who have those beliefs.
As to "is it a good fit for HN?", I'm not sure it is.
But it's it engaging in 15-years-ago inversive? I don't think so. Rather than insult those with beliefs, it's simply saying that those without religion can be as happy and philosophically wholesome as those with.
As to "is it a good fit for HN?", I'm not sure it is.
But it's it engaging in 15-years-ago inversive? I don't think so. Rather than insult those with beliefs, it's simply saying that those without religion can be as happy and philosophically wholesome as those with.
Religion isn't just about comfort as the article presumes. Article is very naive from the perspective of any serious practicing believer. It's really about Truth.
Let's use a more modern story as an example: The Simulation Theory. We are in a simulation etc., etc. If reality is a like a video game, and we're characters being 'rendered' by the Universe client, how could anyone probe into what the nature of the simulation is? How can any process or group of people ask the right question to find out what exactly is the substrate on which the simulation is being simulated?
Many ancient religions are attempting to do just this. They are trying to peek at the true nature of reality. The words and stories are written in ancient vocabulary, but this doesn't mean ancient peoples were talking nonsense. Even if parts of it are wrong, the main premise of all religions is that the supernatural exists. Something that science is by design unable to probe, just like someone inside the simulation will not be able to look at its own source code.
If you want to dismiss the supernatural, first you must define the true nature of reality.
Let's use a more modern story as an example: The Simulation Theory. We are in a simulation etc., etc. If reality is a like a video game, and we're characters being 'rendered' by the Universe client, how could anyone probe into what the nature of the simulation is? How can any process or group of people ask the right question to find out what exactly is the substrate on which the simulation is being simulated?
Many ancient religions are attempting to do just this. They are trying to peek at the true nature of reality. The words and stories are written in ancient vocabulary, but this doesn't mean ancient peoples were talking nonsense. Even if parts of it are wrong, the main premise of all religions is that the supernatural exists. Something that science is by design unable to probe, just like someone inside the simulation will not be able to look at its own source code.
If you want to dismiss the supernatural, first you must define the true nature of reality.
> They are trying to peek at the true nature of reality.
That would be science.
Religion is a set of rituals, values, traditions, beliefs, institutions and power structures which claim to have a supernatural justification. Since the supernatural justification cannot be examined, it cannot really be questioned or investigated.
Whether the claims of a religion is "true" typically doesn't matter much to the adherents. What matter is the community, traditions and identity the religion provides.
Imagine some historian proved that Moses never existed. Would Christianity, Judaism and Islam just disappear? Of course not. It would have no effect, except for a few atheists gloating on the internet. The world religions would be unaffected.
That would be science.
Religion is a set of rituals, values, traditions, beliefs, institutions and power structures which claim to have a supernatural justification. Since the supernatural justification cannot be examined, it cannot really be questioned or investigated.
Whether the claims of a religion is "true" typically doesn't matter much to the adherents. What matter is the community, traditions and identity the religion provides.
Imagine some historian proved that Moses never existed. Would Christianity, Judaism and Islam just disappear? Of course not. It would have no effect, except for a few atheists gloating on the internet. The world religions would be unaffected.
> That would be science.
Science doesn't seem too good at dealing with subjective experience.
Science doesn't seem too good at dealing with subjective experience.
Perhaps, but that is beside the point when discussing religion, since religions does not say their claims are purely "subjective experiences". Rather they tend to be adamant they are objective truths bigger than any individual.
A few exceptions exists, like the Church of Satan which worship Satan while at the same time openly stating that he does not exist except as a symbol.
A few exceptions exists, like the Church of Satan which worship Satan while at the same time openly stating that he does not exist except as a symbol.
I also think there is a difference between what they say they do and what they do. It seems you are focusing on the former, while I am focusing on the latter.
Consider someone who is upholding a tradition. They may give you an explanation which may not do it justice. That is not to say all traditions are relevant or useful, but I think that there is a possibility that a tradition can go beyond the scope of an individual's awareness, and copying is often far cheaper than rebuilding from scratch and working through trial and error.
Consider someone who is upholding a tradition. They may give you an explanation which may not do it justice. That is not to say all traditions are relevant or useful, but I think that there is a possibility that a tradition can go beyond the scope of an individual's awareness, and copying is often far cheaper than rebuilding from scratch and working through trial and error.
> That would be science.
In the broad sense, the sciences include philosophy. Natural or empirical sciences are not privileged. They are a product and part of culture as much as anything and thus subject to the same caveats as anything else. Those who worship at the feet of "Science!" are those who lack the intellectual sophistication to understand what science is. It is a kind of petty intellectual provincialism when elevated beyond its natural place in the grand scheme of things.
So yes, religion, and philosophy (metaphysics at its core), are very much concerned with ultimate reality. This does not mean that what the sciences tell us must be false or illusory, only that, at best, they are concerned with bits and pieces of reality, while metaphysics studies being as being and religion, at least Christianity, concerns itself with revealed truths concerning the ultimate. Faith (as probable and trustworthy) only enters the pictures when, for example, we identify the god of Abraham with the god of philosophy (Ipsum Esse Subsistens). I.e., the god of revealed theology with the god of natural theology.
So while the empirical sciences are without question a good, let us not pretend they are anything more than they really are.
> Religion is a set of rituals, values, traditions, beliefs, institutions and power structures which claim to have a supernatural justification. Since the supernatural justification cannot be examined, it cannot really be questioned or investigated.
First of all, there is no single thing called "religion". And furthermore, every man has a religion according to the most sensible characterization as that which a man worships. All men worship something, view something as the highest good, whether they realize it or not.
Second, you've sort of listed a bunch of characteristics without any deeper reflection:
1. Rituals don't exist for their own sake. They have functions. They are a language of signs that are meant to communicate some reality and put some flesh on things which could otherwise remain purely abstract. They can be sacramental in nature (sign of the cross). Truths are what are ostensibly communicated, and it is those truths ultimately that they serve.
2. Traditions serve to maintain a continuity that allows truths to become accessible across generations (and btw, there are traditions within science as well; you couldn't have science without tradition; what do you suppose a mentor is doing when he's teaching you?). Tradition is what allows you to interpret scripture. Without that knowledge, you're left with the problems plaguing Protestantism (obverse the 40,000+ sects in America alone). So again, truth is the ultimate end of tradition.
3. Institutions also serve a purpose. They are guardians of tradition and, in the case of the Catholic Church, also that through which sacraments are dispensed. Institutions are also not solely the province of religion, at least not from a Christian POV where a distinction between God (religious) and Caesar (secular) exists. But again, truth is the ultimate end.
4. "Power structures" is a wishy washy term in this context. Authority exists everywhere. Distributions of power exist in all human societies. Authority has a purpose when exercised within its proper bounds, which is the good of men in some sense, and ultimately the good of men depends on truth. Again, we are oriented toward the truth.
The truth as known and the truth as lived.
> Imagine some historian proved that Moses never existed. Would Christianity, Judaism and Islam just disappear? Of course not.
This is untrue. Religions make truth claims. Which truth claims are essential to the viability of a religion and in what way vary. Something like Buddhism would probably survive without the Buddha of the stories because the principles are what count, but it would not survive a thorough rebuttal of those principles. On the other hand, Judaism and its heir, Christianity, for example, are historical. God acts in history. There is historical development. That doesn't mean that the writing style used in heterogeneous scripture will conform to modern historical conventions, that there aren't places where symbolic language or hyperbole are used, but it does mean, for example, that Christianity as such is nothing without Jesus. Jesus was not just some "wise man". The validity of Christianity rests entirely on him being the Incarnate Logos. Otherwise, Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or the gospels are made up (to all of these, and more, there are responses; see Kreeft for a compilation). So yes, if you could somehow show that Jesus never existed, you would in effect destroy Christianity. There is no question about it.
In the broad sense, the sciences include philosophy. Natural or empirical sciences are not privileged. They are a product and part of culture as much as anything and thus subject to the same caveats as anything else. Those who worship at the feet of "Science!" are those who lack the intellectual sophistication to understand what science is. It is a kind of petty intellectual provincialism when elevated beyond its natural place in the grand scheme of things.
So yes, religion, and philosophy (metaphysics at its core), are very much concerned with ultimate reality. This does not mean that what the sciences tell us must be false or illusory, only that, at best, they are concerned with bits and pieces of reality, while metaphysics studies being as being and religion, at least Christianity, concerns itself with revealed truths concerning the ultimate. Faith (as probable and trustworthy) only enters the pictures when, for example, we identify the god of Abraham with the god of philosophy (Ipsum Esse Subsistens). I.e., the god of revealed theology with the god of natural theology.
So while the empirical sciences are without question a good, let us not pretend they are anything more than they really are.
> Religion is a set of rituals, values, traditions, beliefs, institutions and power structures which claim to have a supernatural justification. Since the supernatural justification cannot be examined, it cannot really be questioned or investigated.
First of all, there is no single thing called "religion". And furthermore, every man has a religion according to the most sensible characterization as that which a man worships. All men worship something, view something as the highest good, whether they realize it or not.
Second, you've sort of listed a bunch of characteristics without any deeper reflection:
1. Rituals don't exist for their own sake. They have functions. They are a language of signs that are meant to communicate some reality and put some flesh on things which could otherwise remain purely abstract. They can be sacramental in nature (sign of the cross). Truths are what are ostensibly communicated, and it is those truths ultimately that they serve.
2. Traditions serve to maintain a continuity that allows truths to become accessible across generations (and btw, there are traditions within science as well; you couldn't have science without tradition; what do you suppose a mentor is doing when he's teaching you?). Tradition is what allows you to interpret scripture. Without that knowledge, you're left with the problems plaguing Protestantism (obverse the 40,000+ sects in America alone). So again, truth is the ultimate end of tradition.
3. Institutions also serve a purpose. They are guardians of tradition and, in the case of the Catholic Church, also that through which sacraments are dispensed. Institutions are also not solely the province of religion, at least not from a Christian POV where a distinction between God (religious) and Caesar (secular) exists. But again, truth is the ultimate end.
4. "Power structures" is a wishy washy term in this context. Authority exists everywhere. Distributions of power exist in all human societies. Authority has a purpose when exercised within its proper bounds, which is the good of men in some sense, and ultimately the good of men depends on truth. Again, we are oriented toward the truth.
The truth as known and the truth as lived.
> Imagine some historian proved that Moses never existed. Would Christianity, Judaism and Islam just disappear? Of course not.
This is untrue. Religions make truth claims. Which truth claims are essential to the viability of a religion and in what way vary. Something like Buddhism would probably survive without the Buddha of the stories because the principles are what count, but it would not survive a thorough rebuttal of those principles. On the other hand, Judaism and its heir, Christianity, for example, are historical. God acts in history. There is historical development. That doesn't mean that the writing style used in heterogeneous scripture will conform to modern historical conventions, that there aren't places where symbolic language or hyperbole are used, but it does mean, for example, that Christianity as such is nothing without Jesus. Jesus was not just some "wise man". The validity of Christianity rests entirely on him being the Incarnate Logos. Otherwise, Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or the gospels are made up (to all of these, and more, there are responses; see Kreeft for a compilation). So yes, if you could somehow show that Jesus never existed, you would in effect destroy Christianity. There is no question about it.
By the way, the Lewis trilemma is silly. It is possible for a person to be mistaken about something without being either mad or a liar (i.e. deliberately telling untruths). Regarding the Gospels it is well known they are written down decades after the events and based on an evolving tradition of beliefs.
The gospel writers might only have written things they believed were the literal truth even though some of it is obviously legends rather than historical facts. For example Jesus is a completely different person in John than he is in Mark, but that does not mean any of the authors where deliberately making things up.
Given the available sources, it is quite unlikely that Jesus considered himself a God. He might have considered himself the Messiah in the Jewish sense of a human prophet king and savior of the people.
The gospel writers might only have written things they believed were the literal truth even though some of it is obviously legends rather than historical facts. For example Jesus is a completely different person in John than he is in Mark, but that does not mean any of the authors where deliberately making things up.
Given the available sources, it is quite unlikely that Jesus considered himself a God. He might have considered himself the Messiah in the Jewish sense of a human prophet king and savior of the people.
> Religions make truth claims.
Yeah, but typically of a nature which cannot be proven right or wrong. E.g. how could anyone prove that Jesus was or wasn't the "Incarnate Logos"? It is impossible since it is a purely metaphysical claim. Or how to prove Mohammed actually talked to an angel of God? Either claim is unprovable. Which one you believe basically comes down what makes you feel good. (Or more realistically, what your parents told you to believe.)
But in cases where the truth claim can be verified, there are numerous examples of such claims being proven wrong, without it having any effect on the believers. Just as an example, the biblical justification of the dogma of the Trinity was proven to be a forgery already in the renaissance. Did it it change anything? Of course not. The belief in the trinity was so institutionalized at that point it didn't matter.
Yeah, but typically of a nature which cannot be proven right or wrong. E.g. how could anyone prove that Jesus was or wasn't the "Incarnate Logos"? It is impossible since it is a purely metaphysical claim. Or how to prove Mohammed actually talked to an angel of God? Either claim is unprovable. Which one you believe basically comes down what makes you feel good. (Or more realistically, what your parents told you to believe.)
But in cases where the truth claim can be verified, there are numerous examples of such claims being proven wrong, without it having any effect on the believers. Just as an example, the biblical justification of the dogma of the Trinity was proven to be a forgery already in the renaissance. Did it it change anything? Of course not. The belief in the trinity was so institutionalized at that point it didn't matter.
The way I see it (using an analogy that necessarily oversimplifies things) is that if this existence were like a computer game, and we were the characters in it, then science attempts to understand the game, and religion (or perhaps more accurately theology) tries to understand the game developer.
Better analogy: Science tries to understand the game and where it comes from. Religion claims that some guy talked to the game developer, and therefore we all have to obey everything he says.
Not really - empirical science makes the assumption that nothing exists outside of the game (or at least anything that exists outside the game has to be proved from elements within the game)
Empirical science makes no assumptions like that. Empirical science cannot say anything meaningful about things which does not affect reality in some way, however indirectly.
Then in some way, we are in agreement. Science cannot say anything meaningful about things that don’t affect reality. Religion (or theology) concerns itself with the reason that reality exists.
The purview of science is limited to phenomena that can be observed or experienced. The purview of religion (specifically theology) is that which cannot be explained by science (now or ever)
The purview of science is limited to phenomena that can be observed or experienced. The purview of religion (specifically theology) is that which cannot be explained by science (now or ever)
> Religion (or theology) concerns itself with the reason that reality exists.
All religions have a creation myth, but religion cannot be reduced to just the creation myth. That would just be deism which is basically a form of atheism. Religions believe that supernatural forces actually affect the world.
All religions have a creation myth, but religion cannot be reduced to just the creation myth. That would just be deism which is basically a form of atheism. Religions believe that supernatural forces actually affect the world.
> Whether the claims of a religion is "true" typically doesn't matter much to the adherents. What matter is the community, traditions and identity the religion provides.
I see you said "typically", but your description of religion is in direct contradiction to what I understand as a Bahá'í, so I thought it might be worth sharing a bit.
One of the core principles of the Bahá'í Faith is the independent investigation of truth. It is considered a moral duty of human beings, and as such, I think it could also be considered a moral requirement for adherence. Without it, the adherence to rituals, traditions, identity, institutions, etc. is just an eggshell—and often cause of division.
I see you said "typically", but your description of religion is in direct contradiction to what I understand as a Bahá'í, so I thought it might be worth sharing a bit.
One of the core principles of the Bahá'í Faith is the independent investigation of truth. It is considered a moral duty of human beings, and as such, I think it could also be considered a moral requirement for adherence. Without it, the adherence to rituals, traditions, identity, institutions, etc. is just an eggshell—and often cause of division.
Science cannot explain the nature of reality itself. Anything it can explain and test, is within reality itself. This is because at the heart of science are tests, which are meant to predict how reality unfolds. In other words, without reality "unfolding" (whatever that may be), you can't test anything and therefore you can't practice science.
We've already bumped into this with Quantum Theory. Experiments can't solve 'the measurement problem', and interpretations like 'Many Worlds' where multiple parallel universes exist, are unfalsifiable and untestable. I think the Big Bang falls into this as well, since we have no idea what exists before time started.
We've already bumped into this with Quantum Theory. Experiments can't solve 'the measurement problem', and interpretations like 'Many Worlds' where multiple parallel universes exist, are unfalsifiable and untestable. I think the Big Bang falls into this as well, since we have no idea what exists before time started.
Lots of absolutist claims here
>Science cannot explain the nature of reality itself.
Science is a methodology, by design it can flex and change based evidence. Absolute claims do not belong in science, you are not speaking the language of science.
>Science cannot explain the nature of reality itself.
Science is a methodology, by design it can flex and change based evidence. Absolute claims do not belong in science, you are not speaking the language of science.
> Let's use a more modern story as an example: The Simulation Theory. We are in a simulation etc., etc. If reality is a like a video game, and we're characters being 'rendered' by the Universe client, how could anyone probe into what the nature of the simulation is? How can any process or group of people ask the right question to find out what exactly is the substrate on which the simulation is being simulated?
There is effectively no difference between simulation theory and a creator god like Christians believe in. According to the Bible god created a simulation with humans and stuff. We live in it and have to fulfil the goals of the simulation or God will interfere or even shut it down.
The main thing separating religions is that they claim to know why the simulation is still running. I don't see any reason why you should believe their claim as to why the simulation is still running. I see why you'd want to believe in the simulation, but why believe and spread all the specifics?
Personally I think it is more comforting to not believe there is a god or simulation. Without a god there is nobody that can shut it down, so existence will continue. With a god existence is meaningless since he can just shut it down at any moment wasting all effort we have put in.
There is effectively no difference between simulation theory and a creator god like Christians believe in. According to the Bible god created a simulation with humans and stuff. We live in it and have to fulfil the goals of the simulation or God will interfere or even shut it down.
The main thing separating religions is that they claim to know why the simulation is still running. I don't see any reason why you should believe their claim as to why the simulation is still running. I see why you'd want to believe in the simulation, but why believe and spread all the specifics?
Personally I think it is more comforting to not believe there is a god or simulation. Without a god there is nobody that can shut it down, so existence will continue. With a god existence is meaningless since he can just shut it down at any moment wasting all effort we have put in.
> According to the Bible god created a simulation with humans and stuff. We live in it and have to fulfil the goals of the simulation or God will interfere or even shut it down.
Genesis begins with God creating the Universe not creating a computer and kicking off a simulation of the Universe. I’m uncertain if you’re simply misusing the word for effect or whether you don’t believe in reality and are projecting that onto Scripture, regardless the Bible refers to no simulations.
Genesis begins with God creating the Universe not creating a computer and kicking off a simulation of the Universe. I’m uncertain if you’re simply misusing the word for effect or whether you don’t believe in reality and are projecting that onto Scripture, regardless the Bible refers to no simulations.
> Genesis begins with God creating the Universe not creating a computer and kicking off a simulation of the Universe
I don't see the difference between the two. In the first god used some means to create what we perceive as reality, in the other god used some means to create what we perceive as reality. In both cases God is an entity outside of what we perceive as reality, meaning his reality must be used to run our reality, meaning our reality is a simulation that he is running from his reality no matter how you look at it. If he didn't simulate our reality it means that our existence is the same as his, we follow the same physical rules and laws, and the bible makes it clear that it isn't the case, hence he must be simulating us.
If you don't believe God actually exists outside of our reality then I don't see how your religion actually answers the question about the truth of the universe.
Edit: And if you still believe that the Bible can be true without God running a simulation you'd have to explain how that works and how it would be different from him running a simulation. To me it seems to create more questions than answers, meaning it gets you further from the "Truth" of the universe that proc0 was talking about.
I don't see the difference between the two. In the first god used some means to create what we perceive as reality, in the other god used some means to create what we perceive as reality. In both cases God is an entity outside of what we perceive as reality, meaning his reality must be used to run our reality, meaning our reality is a simulation that he is running from his reality no matter how you look at it. If he didn't simulate our reality it means that our existence is the same as his, we follow the same physical rules and laws, and the bible makes it clear that it isn't the case, hence he must be simulating us.
If you don't believe God actually exists outside of our reality then I don't see how your religion actually answers the question about the truth of the universe.
Edit: And if you still believe that the Bible can be true without God running a simulation you'd have to explain how that works and how it would be different from him running a simulation. To me it seems to create more questions than answers, meaning it gets you further from the "Truth" of the universe that proc0 was talking about.
> God is an entity outside of what we perceive as reality, meaning his reality must be used to run our reality
That’s not the understanding of God and creation presented in Scripture. God is not presented as part of a separate reality but is presented as the ultimate and necessary being from whom all contingent beings ultimately come from. God is presented as creating space and matter through His will alone from nothing and breathing a spirit into man who then has free will, agency, and an eternal destiny. You can believe all the vague sci-fi derived philosophies you like but it’s nonsense to map them onto the Bible.
That’s not the understanding of God and creation presented in Scripture. God is not presented as part of a separate reality but is presented as the ultimate and necessary being from whom all contingent beings ultimately come from. God is presented as creating space and matter through His will alone from nothing and breathing a spirit into man who then has free will, agency, and an eternal destiny. You can believe all the vague sci-fi derived philosophies you like but it’s nonsense to map them onto the Bible.
It is not nonsense to reason about how the Bible could be true. If God is a computer or God is a programmer both of those scenarios would work and result in the story in the Bible. Instead I'd argue that it is nonsense to say that God isn't a programmer or a computer without coming up with a reasonable alternative. It is also fine to just leave that part out, but in that case I'd say that my religion describing god as a computer has more explanatory power than your religion which just says god existed and used magic to create the universe, it is a very reasonable and sound extension to the origin story in the bible. Ultimately that magic is equivalent to programming the universe, we don't know what kind of hardware he used to run the universe no matter how you view it you can say he programmed it. What else would you call "writing the laws of the universe" than programming?
[deleted]
I believe that is correct, except that in that case simulation is just a synonym for reality, at which point it becomes a semantic difference.
Hindus talk about Maya, and how reality is an illusion, so in some sense this isn't new in religion. It is also why Simulation Hypothesis (as I should have referred to it) has been criticized as a techno-religion, along with a super AI being and all that.
Hindus talk about Maya, and how reality is an illusion, so in some sense this isn't new in religion. It is also why Simulation Hypothesis (as I should have referred to it) has been criticized as a techno-religion, along with a super AI being and all that.
Maybe that's what religion is to you. Will you honestly claim that's the focus for the majority of, say, the 65% of US adults that are religious? I guess huge congregations of religious believers that live their lives around heaven/hell, scripture, and infallible divine authorities aren't serious? "any serious practicing believer" is so plainly a No True Scotsman qualifier.
The parent did not make the 'no true scotsman' informal fallacy, as they restricted their definition (in their first post). You might have a good argument that this definition is unrealistic, but it is not plainly fallacious.
Not every argument which you disagree with contains a logical fallacy.
Not every argument which you disagree with contains a logical fallacy.
I wasn't accusing them of a logical fallacy, I said they used a "No True Scotsman qualifier". Inventing a vague No True Scotsman qualifier is pretty rich if you're accusing the article of being naive and lecturing about what religion is apparently truly about.
"No True Scotsman" refers to a informal fallacy [1]; using an absurdly narrow qualifier may be unreasonable, but is a totally different matter.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I wouldn't know if "serious practitioner" is an absurdly narrow qualifier because it's vague and slippery. "What's that, your church doesn't do any of that? Well, that's because they're not serious practitioners".
Granted, the GP didn't actually respond with that (AFAICT they haven't responded at all) which is why I agree that it's not quite the "No True Scotsman fallacy", but that is precisely the weasel wording that sets one up. Hence, a No True Scotsman qualifier, a qualifier that preempts any counterexample to this elaborate description of what religion is really about.
Restricting a definition doesn't eliminate a No True Scotsman, that has nothing to do with it. The foundation of No True Scotsman is a vague and slippery definition. Just like no true Scotsman can disagree with my theoretical description of what Scots do, no serious practitioner can disagree with GP's description of religion. It's about falsifiability.
Granted, the GP didn't actually respond with that (AFAICT they haven't responded at all) which is why I agree that it's not quite the "No True Scotsman fallacy", but that is precisely the weasel wording that sets one up. Hence, a No True Scotsman qualifier, a qualifier that preempts any counterexample to this elaborate description of what religion is really about.
Restricting a definition doesn't eliminate a No True Scotsman, that has nothing to do with it. The foundation of No True Scotsman is a vague and slippery definition. Just like no true Scotsman can disagree with my theoretical description of what Scots do, no serious practitioner can disagree with GP's description of religion. It's about falsifiability.
"No True Scotsman" is usually (as in Wikipedia) defined as initially providing a very broad statement, then qualifying it narrowly when the statement is demonstrated to be false. The top-level commenter (TLC) did nothing of the sort.
The TLC didn't use "weasel wording" either, which are vague and unverifiable statements. On the contrary, the TLC was very specific, perhaps unreasonably so.
The TLC didn't use "weasel wording" either, which are vague and unverifiable statements. On the contrary, the TLC was very specific, perhaps unreasonably so.
"serious practitioner" is not specific or verifiable in the slightest. I suppose there's not much more to be said if we can't agree on that.
> true nature of reality
If it’s as you said,
> Something that science is by design unable to probe, just like someone inside the simulation will not be able to look at its own source code.
Is there a point in creating hypotheses regarding this if none of them will be falsifiable?
If it’s as you said,
> Something that science is by design unable to probe, just like someone inside the simulation will not be able to look at its own source code.
Is there a point in creating hypotheses regarding this if none of them will be falsifiable?
That you have a conscious experience of reality instead of being a souless biological machine in the shape of a human is not falsifiable, and yet we base a significant portion of our decisions on the assumption that it is true.
That's a response, but it's certainly not an answer to the question that was asked. Unless your suggestion is that it's because people are acting illogically, and there is in fact no reason to ask the question in the first place?
My suggestion is that while we talk about the concept of objective measurement as the one and only source of truth, deep down we are keenly aware that it is not.
Either this means that our intuition is wrong, or that empiricism is not sufficient to fully model reality.
If you are leaning towards the latter, I suggest a subjective experiment: do you think you are an automaton simply reacting to stimuli in a complicated fashion, no different than machine? Because empirically no one can ever say otherwise. Yet, if you are like most people, you know for a fact this is not true; that you experience reality is undeniable.
Either this means that our intuition is wrong, or that empiricism is not sufficient to fully model reality.
If you are leaning towards the latter, I suggest a subjective experiment: do you think you are an automaton simply reacting to stimuli in a complicated fashion, no different than machine? Because empirically no one can ever say otherwise. Yet, if you are like most people, you know for a fact this is not true; that you experience reality is undeniable.
> do you think you are an automaton simply reacting to stimuli in a complicated fashion, no different than machine?
Yes. Although it's a fairly advanced machine, with an architecture that is unlike (most?) machines built by humans. I do believe it may never be possible to import an existing human brain in a computer for practical reasons: you would have to cut the brain into extremely thin slices to copy the layout. But if such a detailed scan were possible and we would have sufficient knowledge about the biological workings of the brain and a sufficiently powerful computer, I don't believe there is any theoretical reason why my consciousness couldn't be simulated with reasonable accuracy on a computer.
> Yet, if you are like most people, you know for a fact this is not true; that you experience reality is undeniable.
Why wouldn't a machine be able to experience reality (or what it perceives to be reality - human senses have various known flaws, for example various optical illusions)? My robot vacuum detects walls and moves to avoid them. It's clearly perceiving reality, and responding to it. It even responds in ways that I find hard to predict (sometimes it turns left, sometimes it turns right, sometimes it moves backward).
Yes. Although it's a fairly advanced machine, with an architecture that is unlike (most?) machines built by humans. I do believe it may never be possible to import an existing human brain in a computer for practical reasons: you would have to cut the brain into extremely thin slices to copy the layout. But if such a detailed scan were possible and we would have sufficient knowledge about the biological workings of the brain and a sufficiently powerful computer, I don't believe there is any theoretical reason why my consciousness couldn't be simulated with reasonable accuracy on a computer.
> Yet, if you are like most people, you know for a fact this is not true; that you experience reality is undeniable.
Why wouldn't a machine be able to experience reality (or what it perceives to be reality - human senses have various known flaws, for example various optical illusions)? My robot vacuum detects walls and moves to avoid them. It's clearly perceiving reality, and responding to it. It even responds in ways that I find hard to predict (sometimes it turns left, sometimes it turns right, sometimes it moves backward).
In truth, I'm a panpsychist so I don't actually believe that machines (or anything else for that matter) doesn't have an experience of reality.
What I find odd is that you don't recognizing the difference at all between the conception of a p-zombie (an automaton with no experience of reality) and your own experience of reality. Typically we use machines as an example because most people would say that, unlike with people, machines don't really think, or feel, or suffer, so we there are never any moral considerations for dealing with them. Dark Mirror likes to demonstrate this common belief frequently in its episodes about "cookies", or people who are replicated in technology: "it's just code". Given that most people make the distinction, it is usually sufficient to point out that empiricism can make no measurement to determine the difference between an entity that experiences the world, and one that is an automaton.
You're purely materialist way of looking at things, where consciousness is a product of being a sufficiently complex system still begs the question: how complex? Again, I do not think there is any satisfactory empirical definition.
What I find odd is that you don't recognizing the difference at all between the conception of a p-zombie (an automaton with no experience of reality) and your own experience of reality. Typically we use machines as an example because most people would say that, unlike with people, machines don't really think, or feel, or suffer, so we there are never any moral considerations for dealing with them. Dark Mirror likes to demonstrate this common belief frequently in its episodes about "cookies", or people who are replicated in technology: "it's just code". Given that most people make the distinction, it is usually sufficient to point out that empiricism can make no measurement to determine the difference between an entity that experiences the world, and one that is an automaton.
You're purely materialist way of looking at things, where consciousness is a product of being a sufficiently complex system still begs the question: how complex? Again, I do not think there is any satisfactory empirical definition.
> deep down we are keenly aware that it is not.
I'm afraid I disagree with that.
> Yet, if you are like most people, you know for a fact this is not true
Likewise, I do not know for a fact that it is not true. I'm not sure that 'fact' even makes sense in that context.
I'm afraid I disagree with that.
> Yet, if you are like most people, you know for a fact this is not true
Likewise, I do not know for a fact that it is not true. I'm not sure that 'fact' even makes sense in that context.
This is kind of illustrating my point: you're so heavily indoctrinated to empiricism as the one and only way to model reality that you are ready to deny your own conscious experience of reality simply because it is not objectively measurable.
> you are ready to deny your own conscious experience of reality
No, I just don't agree that it qualifies as truth.
No, I just don't agree that it qualifies as truth.
Based on current evidence we do seem to be soulless biological machines though. We don’t feel like it nor do most of us act like it is, most of the time, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Also just because we cannot determine the objective truth due to limitations in our conditions doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means it’s pointless for us to try to determine what said truth is - although we can speculate for entertainment.
Also just because we cannot determine the objective truth due to limitations in our conditions doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means it’s pointless for us to try to determine what said truth is - although we can speculate for entertainment.
> Based on current evidence we do seem to be soulless biological machines though. We don’t feel like it nor do most of us act like it is, most of the time, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
The fact that we (or rather I) have an experience of reality as opposed to not having one is evidence that we are not simply biological machines. And by 'machines' I mean something like Searle's hypothetical Chinese Room, a system that operates based purely on sufficiently complex rules but has no experience of actually speaking Chinese. If you claim this is illusion, then what is experiencing the illusion?
[0] At least according to Searle. Other philosophers disagree, as do I. For the purpose of the argument though we will assume there is such a thing as an automata that doesn't have an experience of the world the way you and I do.
The fact that we (or rather I) have an experience of reality as opposed to not having one is evidence that we are not simply biological machines. And by 'machines' I mean something like Searle's hypothetical Chinese Room, a system that operates based purely on sufficiently complex rules but has no experience of actually speaking Chinese. If you claim this is illusion, then what is experiencing the illusion?
[0] At least according to Searle. Other philosophers disagree, as do I. For the purpose of the argument though we will assume there is such a thing as an automata that doesn't have an experience of the world the way you and I do.
> The fact that we (or rather I) have an experience of reality as opposed to not having one is evidence that we are not simply biological machines.
That's exactly what a sufficiently advanced biological machine might claim. It may even believe it.
If we could make an exact molecular copy of Jackie Chan, would that copy be able to speak Chinese even though it has no experience of actually speaking Chinese?
That's exactly what a sufficiently advanced biological machine might claim. It may even believe it.
If we could make an exact molecular copy of Jackie Chan, would that copy be able to speak Chinese even though it has no experience of actually speaking Chinese?
Exact this. Free will is by definition supernatural if you believe it exists.
Free will can also just be a psychological illusion - even if we objectively believe it doesn’t exist we can’t shake it off even if we tried; or at least as I have tried.
That sounds like faith :)
> Is there a point in creating hypotheses regarding this if none of them will be falsifiable?
Here, we would enter an ontological discussion. What does it mean to know? So to be able to answer this, first we would need to solve the nature of consciousness. Maybe there are experiments on the brain showing where we store memories, but I don't think we have a good explanation on how, and more importantly what the nature of subjective experience really is.
This could mean the best way to explore that question is subjectively, as Buddhists (and other religions, although to a lesser extent I think) have done for thousands of years, so hypothesis and falsifiability goes out the window, because those are also subjective concepts. That's a tough question.
Here, we would enter an ontological discussion. What does it mean to know? So to be able to answer this, first we would need to solve the nature of consciousness. Maybe there are experiments on the brain showing where we store memories, but I don't think we have a good explanation on how, and more importantly what the nature of subjective experience really is.
This could mean the best way to explore that question is subjectively, as Buddhists (and other religions, although to a lesser extent I think) have done for thousands of years, so hypothesis and falsifiability goes out the window, because those are also subjective concepts. That's a tough question.
One of my hobbies is to study the "ancient philosophy" if we may call it this way.
One of my favorite pearls I've found so far is one saint's thoughts on the nature of reality and the power of numbers. He said something along this line: every thing has a number, chance is just the lack of knowledge and time is a sequence of numbers, one is the number of spirit and zero is the number of matter, so together they form 10 which is the number of existence and the origin of duality.
Apparently, the concept of super determinism and simulation was known well before Christianity was a project.
One of my favorite pearls I've found so far is one saint's thoughts on the nature of reality and the power of numbers. He said something along this line: every thing has a number, chance is just the lack of knowledge and time is a sequence of numbers, one is the number of spirit and zero is the number of matter, so together they form 10 which is the number of existence and the origin of duality.
Apparently, the concept of super determinism and simulation was known well before Christianity was a project.
Think about it from the context of a virtual machine. To the virtual machine, it doesn’t know it’s not a real computer. But, under some circumstances, it is possible for the VM to escape and affect the world outside its universe (ROWHAMMER). Why wouldn’t there be a ROWHAMMER for the universe?
If there were such a virtual machine (and I have no idea), under my conception of God, it wouldn't have any bugs or flaws. :)
For example, we believe He is the source of all light, is not subject to time in the same way we are, He knows the end from the beginning, and we have the opportunity to know more in the future. I can't personally explain more than that except that the important thing for now is for us to learn what we can, act on that faithfully, take good steps forward, and opportunities will open for more steps (my phrasing).
For example, we believe He is the source of all light, is not subject to time in the same way we are, He knows the end from the beginning, and we have the opportunity to know more in the future. I can't personally explain more than that except that the important thing for now is for us to learn what we can, act on that faithfully, take good steps forward, and opportunities will open for more steps (my phrasing).
>But the most striking results emerged when participants were asked to generate existential explanations that offered comfort and peace of mind.
There's a whole great difference between "generating existential explanations that offered comfort and peace of mind" and actually having "existential explanations that offered comfort and peace of mind".
In the first case, the participants wrote some explanations that they thought should offer comfort and peace of mind (key word: should).
In the second case, those explanations actually offered them comfort and peace of mind.
The first case, explanations that you can up with that oughta offer comfort and peace of mind, are a dime a dozen.
The second case, things that actually offer comfort and peace of mind are orders of magnitude rarer (and historically religion has been found effective in this).
And it's easy to fool one's self (especially given the culture we're in, where it's a faux pass to be religious in "polite company") that, "this god-less scientific explanation should be fine for the purpose of meaning", as if people are logical machines satisfied with mere technical explanation, or as if those explanations arrive at some ultimate meaning, when all they offer are the mechanics of the thing.
I'm not saying the scientific explanations are wrong, and the religious ones are right.
I'm saying that the religious ones (a) are based on faith (so they command, assuming you do believe, a larger part of your inner commitment than mere objective reasoning), and (b) are specifically structured to answer the meaning/why part, not just the how part.
Sure, religious explanations can be innefective, if you don't believe in them.
But scientific explanation can not be as effective as belief, because you don't really believe in them: they're proven and broken down for you (as to how they work), so you don't have to believe in them.
So, it's somewhat like the difference between trusting someone blindly (like a kid does with their parents), and "trusting" someone because they do trustworthy things.
In the latter case, you don't really trust them: you weight what they do (and are always vigilant that they might fail to be worthy of your trust). Both cases involve trust, but one is an inherent belief, and the other is an observation based on past performance.
Never mind which is more correct: which one do you think offers more "comfort and peace of mind"? I'd say blind trust wins hands down - and likewise belief-driven explanations.
There's a whole great difference between "generating existential explanations that offered comfort and peace of mind" and actually having "existential explanations that offered comfort and peace of mind".
In the first case, the participants wrote some explanations that they thought should offer comfort and peace of mind (key word: should).
In the second case, those explanations actually offered them comfort and peace of mind.
The first case, explanations that you can up with that oughta offer comfort and peace of mind, are a dime a dozen.
The second case, things that actually offer comfort and peace of mind are orders of magnitude rarer (and historically religion has been found effective in this).
And it's easy to fool one's self (especially given the culture we're in, where it's a faux pass to be religious in "polite company") that, "this god-less scientific explanation should be fine for the purpose of meaning", as if people are logical machines satisfied with mere technical explanation, or as if those explanations arrive at some ultimate meaning, when all they offer are the mechanics of the thing.
I'm not saying the scientific explanations are wrong, and the religious ones are right.
I'm saying that the religious ones (a) are based on faith (so they command, assuming you do believe, a larger part of your inner commitment than mere objective reasoning), and (b) are specifically structured to answer the meaning/why part, not just the how part.
Sure, religious explanations can be innefective, if you don't believe in them.
But scientific explanation can not be as effective as belief, because you don't really believe in them: they're proven and broken down for you (as to how they work), so you don't have to believe in them.
So, it's somewhat like the difference between trusting someone blindly (like a kid does with their parents), and "trusting" someone because they do trustworthy things.
In the latter case, you don't really trust them: you weight what they do (and are always vigilant that they might fail to be worthy of your trust). Both cases involve trust, but one is an inherent belief, and the other is an observation based on past performance.
Never mind which is more correct: which one do you think offers more "comfort and peace of mind"? I'd say blind trust wins hands down - and likewise belief-driven explanations.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur Clarke
It may be useful to rephrase this idea of religion as supernatural or magic, into something that's far more likely (though obviously not guaranteed) to be true or possible: it doesn't speak of magic, it speaks of technologies which we just aren't familiar with.
Turning water into wine is cool, but I can sit in my American house and instantly enjoy a conversation with my friend in Japan. Somehow, only the former is "magic"... whether or not something is magic clearly has nothing to do with how absolutely complex it is, but rather how well you understand it. Well, I'm not sure anyone reading this actually has a "I could rebuild it" understanding of how the global cell phone system works (I certainly don't), so maybe it has nothing to do with understanding; its more to do with desensitization and ubiquity.
Arthur didn't mean "all that technology around you is magic"; he meant: Envision what you think of as magic, as just potentially yet-uninvented technology. I don't read it as a statement about how advanced technology is or can be; I read it as a statement about how everything, including magic, can eventually be understood. Any sufficiently ubiquitous magic is indistinguishable from technology.
God created the universe in seven days. In other words, we're living in a simulation, and it took them seven days to code it.
More broadly, one side can argue that gays shouldn't marry, while the other says religion is a farce and science is the only path forward. If there's one thing humanity is great at, its taking it way too far. What if the third option is just to say, there's something more out there. Maybe you're being judged; maybe you're going to heaven, or maybe you're a simulated A/B test that isn't doing so hot.
It may be useful to rephrase this idea of religion as supernatural or magic, into something that's far more likely (though obviously not guaranteed) to be true or possible: it doesn't speak of magic, it speaks of technologies which we just aren't familiar with.
Turning water into wine is cool, but I can sit in my American house and instantly enjoy a conversation with my friend in Japan. Somehow, only the former is "magic"... whether or not something is magic clearly has nothing to do with how absolutely complex it is, but rather how well you understand it. Well, I'm not sure anyone reading this actually has a "I could rebuild it" understanding of how the global cell phone system works (I certainly don't), so maybe it has nothing to do with understanding; its more to do with desensitization and ubiquity.
Arthur didn't mean "all that technology around you is magic"; he meant: Envision what you think of as magic, as just potentially yet-uninvented technology. I don't read it as a statement about how advanced technology is or can be; I read it as a statement about how everything, including magic, can eventually be understood. Any sufficiently ubiquitous magic is indistinguishable from technology.
God created the universe in seven days. In other words, we're living in a simulation, and it took them seven days to code it.
More broadly, one side can argue that gays shouldn't marry, while the other says religion is a farce and science is the only path forward. If there's one thing humanity is great at, its taking it way too far. What if the third option is just to say, there's something more out there. Maybe you're being judged; maybe you're going to heaven, or maybe you're a simulated A/B test that isn't doing so hot.
>"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur Clarke
I think this would be an interesting place to discuss. When Arthur Clarke made that statement, technology wasnt as ubiquitous as it is today. I've always wondered about the converse of that statement - "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"
I think this would be an interesting place to discuss. When Arthur Clarke made that statement, technology wasnt as ubiquitous as it is today. I've always wondered about the converse of that statement - "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"
Are we really saying that how a belief makes you feel somehow justifies it as good or true? That's ridiculous. Beliefs are our intentions to model the real world. We act in accordance with our beliefs because we hope this will accurately accomplish whatever we are trying to do.
It doesn't matter how a belief makes you feel, if that believe is not based on evidence.
Delusions can make you feel good as well, but they also allow people to be dangerous.
We should be judging beliefs on whether or not they are true, regardless of how good or bad they make us feel.
It doesn't matter how a belief makes you feel, if that believe is not based on evidence.
Delusions can make you feel good as well, but they also allow people to be dangerous.
We should be judging beliefs on whether or not they are true, regardless of how good or bad they make us feel.
It seems in the atheist world, post dawkins/harris/hitchens, we have had a huge increase in atheism. I approve.
We seem to have lost something however(the opium). The now atheist folks seem to be constantly falling into or creating new religions. These atheists who gave up on christianity seem to be seeking for something. I think that religion has grasped onto something and dominated it. If you leave the church you end up losing that thing. What is that thing?
Wokeism is a new religion deriving from Marxism. Even more interestingly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[5]
Wokeism is often confused with being aware of unfairness of how others are treated. It's not that, it's about destroying the religious class but in doing so they themselves break that opium. Marx wanted to break the opium to reveal the corruption of classes, capitalism and exploitation.
However, it's clear right now that Marx didn't understand what that opium actually was however. The removal of that opium seems to have destabilized the woke and empowered those they want to overthrow. Mind you, socialism died in 1989. The entire movement is dead right now, they are just giving it their last horrah.
We seem to have lost something however(the opium). The now atheist folks seem to be constantly falling into or creating new religions. These atheists who gave up on christianity seem to be seeking for something. I think that religion has grasped onto something and dominated it. If you leave the church you end up losing that thing. What is that thing?
Wokeism is a new religion deriving from Marxism. Even more interestingly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[5]
Wokeism is often confused with being aware of unfairness of how others are treated. It's not that, it's about destroying the religious class but in doing so they themselves break that opium. Marx wanted to break the opium to reveal the corruption of classes, capitalism and exploitation.
However, it's clear right now that Marx didn't understand what that opium actually was however. The removal of that opium seems to have destabilized the woke and empowered those they want to overthrow. Mind you, socialism died in 1989. The entire movement is dead right now, they are just giving it their last horrah.
If you think the Catholic faith (or Christianity broadly) is opium, then you have not understood Catholicism. I blame modernism for selling a counterfeit that "feels good" in order to appeal to modern sensibilities and the false supreme virtue of being nice and palatable even at the cost of the truth. Any authentically educated Catholic knows that eternal damnation is exceedingly easy to achieve. All it takes is one unabsolved mortal sin to enter through the wide gate.
If there ever was an opium, atheism is the closest you get to one. No ultimate justice means your sins are of no ultimate consequence.
(This reminds me of Aldous Huxley's frank admission about why his generation was willing to destroy meaning, and it was to try to escape the guilt that would otherwise result from their program of sexual liberation. This is so common. Human pride will foolishly oppose truth and reason, deny things like human nature, the existence of God, and what is objectively good and objectively evil to satisfy some desire that's taken possession of a man. If reason tells you that some desire should not be satisfied, then reason be damned!)
A Christian, on the other hand, awaits his final judgement. He awaits the making public of his every sin and believes that his fate shall be sealed by them and by the authenticity of his faith (trust). That kind of moral austerity is not exactly my idea of opium.
If there ever was an opium, atheism is the closest you get to one. No ultimate justice means your sins are of no ultimate consequence.
(This reminds me of Aldous Huxley's frank admission about why his generation was willing to destroy meaning, and it was to try to escape the guilt that would otherwise result from their program of sexual liberation. This is so common. Human pride will foolishly oppose truth and reason, deny things like human nature, the existence of God, and what is objectively good and objectively evil to satisfy some desire that's taken possession of a man. If reason tells you that some desire should not be satisfied, then reason be damned!)
A Christian, on the other hand, awaits his final judgement. He awaits the making public of his every sin and believes that his fate shall be sealed by them and by the authenticity of his faith (trust). That kind of moral austerity is not exactly my idea of opium.
>If you think the Catholic faith (or Christianity broadly) is opium, then you have not understood Catholicism
I was born into catholic religion and did catholic school. I understand catholicism far better than the average person. You're the one bringing catholicism up, I never brought it up. I would love to have a conversation to see how you see it in this context. So many of my friends are baptist/protestant, I must admit I have lost the catholic view.
> I blame modernism for selling a counterfeit that "feels good" in order to appeal to modern sensibilities and the false supreme virtue of being nice and palatable even at the cost of the truth.
Not really attacking your statement, i do agree. But isn't that catholicism? For 2000 years catholics believed pretty much one thing. They excommunicated a ton of people who wanted to make reasonable changes. Martin Luther just wanted to translate the bible. Ended up outside the catholic church, forming the Lutheran denomination and some pretty rough stances towards the jews which later evolved into World War 2.
Then suddenly the last 20 years the popes at the time have made some serious modern changes to the religion. Who am I to say they cant or shouldnt change? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Womenpriests autoexcomunicating ordained women? Then again I'm comparing this to Ajahn Brahm and ordaining buddhist monk women controversy. Why does religion have such a problem with women?
>If there ever was an opium, atheism is the closest you get to one. No ultimate justice means your sins are of no ultimate consequence.
I don't think I understand. In your words, what do you feel Karl Marx meant by opiate of the masses?
> Human pride will foolishly oppose truth and reason, deny things like human nature, the existence of God, and what is objectively good and objectively evil to satisfy some desire that's taken possession of a man. If reason tells you that some desire should not be satisfied, then reason be damned!)
Many religions certainly put sexual limitations on at least the clergy class. Buddhist monks certainly are not sexual, despite some abuses occurring. I think we are seeing what happens when sexual liberation and those limits fall.
>A Christian, on the other hand, awaits his final judgement. He awaits the making public of his every sin and believes that his fate shall be sealed by them and by the authenticity of his faith (trust). That kind of moral austerity is not exactly my idea of opium.
I dont know if I agree. The ability to not have to lock your front door because you lack the fear of dying to home robbers or something. That certainly soothes the mind. Obviously im only barely touching on the opiate. That's the thing, I'm even saying Karl Marx misunderstood, which is why Marxism ultimately fails.
I was born into catholic religion and did catholic school. I understand catholicism far better than the average person. You're the one bringing catholicism up, I never brought it up. I would love to have a conversation to see how you see it in this context. So many of my friends are baptist/protestant, I must admit I have lost the catholic view.
> I blame modernism for selling a counterfeit that "feels good" in order to appeal to modern sensibilities and the false supreme virtue of being nice and palatable even at the cost of the truth.
Not really attacking your statement, i do agree. But isn't that catholicism? For 2000 years catholics believed pretty much one thing. They excommunicated a ton of people who wanted to make reasonable changes. Martin Luther just wanted to translate the bible. Ended up outside the catholic church, forming the Lutheran denomination and some pretty rough stances towards the jews which later evolved into World War 2.
Then suddenly the last 20 years the popes at the time have made some serious modern changes to the religion. Who am I to say they cant or shouldnt change? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Womenpriests autoexcomunicating ordained women? Then again I'm comparing this to Ajahn Brahm and ordaining buddhist monk women controversy. Why does religion have such a problem with women?
>If there ever was an opium, atheism is the closest you get to one. No ultimate justice means your sins are of no ultimate consequence.
I don't think I understand. In your words, what do you feel Karl Marx meant by opiate of the masses?
> Human pride will foolishly oppose truth and reason, deny things like human nature, the existence of God, and what is objectively good and objectively evil to satisfy some desire that's taken possession of a man. If reason tells you that some desire should not be satisfied, then reason be damned!)
Many religions certainly put sexual limitations on at least the clergy class. Buddhist monks certainly are not sexual, despite some abuses occurring. I think we are seeing what happens when sexual liberation and those limits fall.
>A Christian, on the other hand, awaits his final judgement. He awaits the making public of his every sin and believes that his fate shall be sealed by them and by the authenticity of his faith (trust). That kind of moral austerity is not exactly my idea of opium.
I dont know if I agree. The ability to not have to lock your front door because you lack the fear of dying to home robbers or something. That certainly soothes the mind. Obviously im only barely touching on the opiate. That's the thing, I'm even saying Karl Marx misunderstood, which is why Marxism ultimately fails.
People who don't understand religion really should stop writing about it. Anyone with any familiarity with religion knows it's more sophisticated than a belief in "magic". The fact that the author references metaphysics and magic as if they belong to the same category reveals how ignorant she is. Metaphysics is a field of philosophy.
The fact that they've given an atheist authority over real religious representatives at Harvard is an outrage, and does nothing but show how much they hold the richness of religious traditions in contempt, which should be obvious to anyone with any respect for religious people.
The fact that they've given an atheist authority over real religious representatives at Harvard is an outrage, and does nothing but show how much they hold the richness of religious traditions in contempt, which should be obvious to anyone with any respect for religious people.
Religion is not just Vaticans and Osteen. It's also deeply personal often for the benefit of the wielder; a source of comfort in a path they've carved for themselves that has given them peace -
I had very good atheist friends; friends that I loved who were intelligent and kind but had no religious backgrounds and when they would ask to engage in religious discourse and the platform they preach doesn't make sense....it's just disheartening because this behavior is one of petulance and anger. Are you spreading a religion or a personality disorder
don't understand that when they are hating on God-based religions, they are actually practicing a form of deep adoration and commitment to God in their lives.
You have to find a positive to rally around and you have to be authentic about understanding that it's ok to see someone praying for something in their life and hope that they will be ok in your own secular way.
How many atheists do you know who would make fun of that person as soon as they were around the corner?
I had very good atheist friends; friends that I loved who were intelligent and kind but had no religious backgrounds and when they would ask to engage in religious discourse and the platform they preach doesn't make sense....it's just disheartening because this behavior is one of petulance and anger. Are you spreading a religion or a personality disorder
don't understand that when they are hating on God-based religions, they are actually practicing a form of deep adoration and commitment to God in their lives.
You have to find a positive to rally around and you have to be authentic about understanding that it's ok to see someone praying for something in their life and hope that they will be ok in your own secular way.
How many atheists do you know who would make fun of that person as soon as they were around the corner?
Existential comfort has nothing to do with God. It is the ability to appreciate uncertainty of purpose as being a side affect of free will.
Spirituality is bigger than God; Religious practice in the past of an atheist who is dismayed by their own existence within an atheistic framework needs to take a leap of faith I think.
Spirituality/Shamanism, org Religion, Monastic/ZEN Buddhism are paths to spiritual awakening, but I would argue heavily that absurdism i.e. understanding that there is so much to think about wrt the universe and me being here - but that's the universes fault.
All of you reading this because a protein bumped nasties with another protein, fast forward to your parents and now here we all are together...at the pinnacle of existence from the protien's point of view.
Spirituality is bigger than God; Religious practice in the past of an atheist who is dismayed by their own existence within an atheistic framework needs to take a leap of faith I think.
Spirituality/Shamanism, org Religion, Monastic/ZEN Buddhism are paths to spiritual awakening, but I would argue heavily that absurdism i.e. understanding that there is so much to think about wrt the universe and me being here - but that's the universes fault.
All of you reading this because a protein bumped nasties with another protein, fast forward to your parents and now here we all are together...at the pinnacle of existence from the protien's point of view.
Given that we don't totally understand reality, is it not a little premature to be taking the "magic" out of it? I mean, what if the base substrate of all that is (underlying subatomic particles, at the tiniest levels we don't have the technology yet to explore) is actually what we commonly consider to be "magic"? :-D
In my nearly 40 years of being alive, I've personally encountered 3 broad "categories" of people so far:
1. Religious types, who are super uncomfortable with the unknown and wave it away by pointing to "God".
2. Scientism adherents, who are also super uncomfortable with the unknown, and wave it away with, what looks to me like, a magical belief in science ("science can't explain this, but I totally trust that it eventually will"). They like to denigrate people in category (1) without realizing they're guilty of a similar kind of magical thinking.
3. Mystics. They appreciate science and its shortcomings and don't resort to magical thinking. They're capable of non-dualistic thinking. They don't resort to "God" or "science" to wave away the unknown. They're comfortable with being uncomfortable as just yet another part of the human experience. They accept their personal limitations and make no declarations about the existence or non-existence of things about which they could not possibly know.
1, 2 and 3 also roughly model the various stages of individual development outlined by M. Scott Peck in "Further along the road less traveled" [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#The_four_stages_...
In my nearly 40 years of being alive, I've personally encountered 3 broad "categories" of people so far:
1. Religious types, who are super uncomfortable with the unknown and wave it away by pointing to "God".
2. Scientism adherents, who are also super uncomfortable with the unknown, and wave it away with, what looks to me like, a magical belief in science ("science can't explain this, but I totally trust that it eventually will"). They like to denigrate people in category (1) without realizing they're guilty of a similar kind of magical thinking.
3. Mystics. They appreciate science and its shortcomings and don't resort to magical thinking. They're capable of non-dualistic thinking. They don't resort to "God" or "science" to wave away the unknown. They're comfortable with being uncomfortable as just yet another part of the human experience. They accept their personal limitations and make no declarations about the existence or non-existence of things about which they could not possibly know.
1, 2 and 3 also roughly model the various stages of individual development outlined by M. Scott Peck in "Further along the road less traveled" [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#The_four_stages_...
I think 1. and 2. are very similar as you describe in that they believe what they pick up and have a difficult time challenging concepts the deeper these sit in their belief system of everything physical and otherwise.
The difference I see with 3. is that people that might identify with this will try to challenge their views in ways that most people won't and in the process often realize how much of their views are based on belief. I disagree with the choice of the word "mystic" greatly because anyone religious, spiritual or not can fit this description. I'm not sure I agree with you on the being comfortable or not part. In my opinion challenging yourself on emotions and feeling comfortable and reflecting on that is a part of this too.
Regarding belief and challenging your views:
I believe the milky way is a spiral galaxy. I have not done mathematical calculations of the position of stars or the densities of light in the night time sky. Even if I had, these would only be indicators. So far I have only the words of others to base this belief on.
I was originally going to go with the example of the earth being round where my only own observation might be the curvature of the earth in an airplane. But I assumed for many this might push them into category 2. so I put it here to challenge those that read this far.
[edit/addition]: The examples are supposed to challenge what you consider absolute knowledge/truth and how close it might be to belief.
The difference I see with 3. is that people that might identify with this will try to challenge their views in ways that most people won't and in the process often realize how much of their views are based on belief. I disagree with the choice of the word "mystic" greatly because anyone religious, spiritual or not can fit this description. I'm not sure I agree with you on the being comfortable or not part. In my opinion challenging yourself on emotions and feeling comfortable and reflecting on that is a part of this too.
Regarding belief and challenging your views:
I believe the milky way is a spiral galaxy. I have not done mathematical calculations of the position of stars or the densities of light in the night time sky. Even if I had, these would only be indicators. So far I have only the words of others to base this belief on.
I was originally going to go with the example of the earth being round where my only own observation might be the curvature of the earth in an airplane. But I assumed for many this might push them into category 2. so I put it here to challenge those that read this far.
[edit/addition]: The examples are supposed to challenge what you consider absolute knowledge/truth and how close it might be to belief.
I wouldn't have expected to be described as a "mystic", but that is the category I fit best, as do a lot of other people I know.
I suspect you'd lump me as an adherent of scientism, since I suspect that the answer to my questions will look more like that. But I have no trouble admitting that I don't know things. There's a lot of stuff I don't know.
I wouldn't even say it makes me uncomfortable. I wish I knew some things, but wishing doesn't make my life better. I do what I can to narrow down my realms of ignorance, and accept the stuff I don't know as a fact that besets the state of an ape-evolved organism with a mediocre, limited brain and a very finite existence.
I wouldn't take any comfort in most of the things I think of as mysticism. If my suspicion that the answers look more like science than mysticism makes me an adherent of scientism, then I accept that charge. But I think the term has a derogatory character which I don't believe really befits what I've described here.
I suspect you'd lump me as an adherent of scientism, since I suspect that the answer to my questions will look more like that. But I have no trouble admitting that I don't know things. There's a lot of stuff I don't know.
I wouldn't even say it makes me uncomfortable. I wish I knew some things, but wishing doesn't make my life better. I do what I can to narrow down my realms of ignorance, and accept the stuff I don't know as a fact that besets the state of an ape-evolved organism with a mediocre, limited brain and a very finite existence.
I wouldn't take any comfort in most of the things I think of as mysticism. If my suspicion that the answers look more like science than mysticism makes me an adherent of scientism, then I accept that charge. But I think the term has a derogatory character which I don't believe really befits what I've described here.
That sounds a lot less like the religious form of scientism I mentioned. Skepticism seems to move people from the religious mindset into an inquiring one in the first place. There’s an openness there that isn’t present in purely religious thinking.
Moving in the direction of mysticism, as I understand it, is when one crosses a certain threshold of skepticism that results in an ever-greater sense of openness and freedom and ease (even in the presence of painful/uncomfortable circumstances).
I also don’t think there’s an endpoint to mysticism, nor do I think there are sharp boundaries between the “categories”/“stages”.
Ultimately (at least my perception of it) is that if it really turned out, for example, that there actually was a “God” hiding down there, turning the wheels of the subatomic particles that animate reality, a scientism adherent would probably be deeply dismayed and need to go through a kind of grieving process to eventually accept that reality. I imagine a mystic would accept it easily as being beautiful and just as easily move on to ask: “okay, so what’s for lunch?”
The experience of beauty and awe seem to be more prevalent as one heads further in the direction of mysticism.
Moving in the direction of mysticism, as I understand it, is when one crosses a certain threshold of skepticism that results in an ever-greater sense of openness and freedom and ease (even in the presence of painful/uncomfortable circumstances).
I also don’t think there’s an endpoint to mysticism, nor do I think there are sharp boundaries between the “categories”/“stages”.
Ultimately (at least my perception of it) is that if it really turned out, for example, that there actually was a “God” hiding down there, turning the wheels of the subatomic particles that animate reality, a scientism adherent would probably be deeply dismayed and need to go through a kind of grieving process to eventually accept that reality. I imagine a mystic would accept it easily as being beautiful and just as easily move on to ask: “okay, so what’s for lunch?”
The experience of beauty and awe seem to be more prevalent as one heads further in the direction of mysticism.
If you're going to define a "God" as something that can hide down there and turn the wheels of natural subatomic particles, I'd argue that you've already clearly departed from the realm of magic.
There used to be an unknown something beneath what we knew that operated on all objects. Now that we know what it is, we call it gravity. So if I'm understanding this right, mysticism is mindset that meets the prospect of a subatomic "God" with "it's beautiful, okay, so what's for lunch?" instead of "holy shit, surely we can apply scientific tools of discovery & knowledge to figure out how what this is and how it works?"? This seems more like lazy thinking to me; the very concept of an inscrutable "God" is a thought terminating cliche. How is that an inquiring mindset? Edit: How is that an inquiring mindset when the mystic reaction to a "God" is not inquiring what it is and how it works?
There used to be an unknown something beneath what we knew that operated on all objects. Now that we know what it is, we call it gravity. So if I'm understanding this right, mysticism is mindset that meets the prospect of a subatomic "God" with "it's beautiful, okay, so what's for lunch?" instead of "holy shit, surely we can apply scientific tools of discovery & knowledge to figure out how what this is and how it works?"? This seems more like lazy thinking to me; the very concept of an inscrutable "God" is a thought terminating cliche. How is that an inquiring mindset? Edit: How is that an inquiring mindset when the mystic reaction to a "God" is not inquiring what it is and how it works?
I wasn’t trying to define God.
Maybe it’s strings down there, or subatomic gnomes (and then we’d have to probe further to discover what makes them tick). Maybe we’ll never be able to know because knowing reality would require knowing all of reality (a la complexity theory).
All I was saying was that it seems to me like the mystics I’ve encountered aren’t super attached to what they hope the outcome is. They’re interested in it, deeply curious about it, in awe of it, but not attached to it.
There’s a far greater emphasis in mysticism on seeing the world as it truly is (and being able to accept it, regardless of how amazing or fucked up it may be) as opposed to how we want it to be.
Maybe it’s strings down there, or subatomic gnomes (and then we’d have to probe further to discover what makes them tick). Maybe we’ll never be able to know because knowing reality would require knowing all of reality (a la complexity theory).
All I was saying was that it seems to me like the mystics I’ve encountered aren’t super attached to what they hope the outcome is. They’re interested in it, deeply curious about it, in awe of it, but not attached to it.
There’s a far greater emphasis in mysticism on seeing the world as it truly is (and being able to accept it, regardless of how amazing or fucked up it may be) as opposed to how we want it to be.
This is great, the individual development stages are also listed in the Hindu Vedic texts, which are not dogmatic like modern religions. They clearly state everyone has a path and they sometimes have unfinished business before they can develop their mind, soul and ego, all which are different entities.
I have learned for myself that God is real, our choices matter, justice and mercy are real things, and we can find good things that last forever, if we want. There is so much good there, that it makes everything else seem to me shallow by comparison: not just peace, but also progress, stability, all kinds of top-notch life helps, enjoyments, refinements, etc.
For many things, one can see the scope of it, top to bottom, after studying for a while. This is endless, expanding goodness that earns trust, answers questions, and yields joy that lasts.
Edit: minor wording improvements. And thoughtful comments appreciated w/ any votes; thanks.
For many things, one can see the scope of it, top to bottom, after studying for a while. This is endless, expanding goodness that earns trust, answers questions, and yields joy that lasts.
Edit: minor wording improvements. And thoughtful comments appreciated w/ any votes; thanks.
Surely there's an article talking about Harvard's new chaplain (assuming that itself is even in topic...) that doesn't engage in IRC-15-years-ago type invective?