(September 10, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(September 10, 2016 at 11:31 am)Mudhammam Wrote: The follow-up question is this: Is it better to live as if the fundamental concepts of religion are true or false, irrespective of whether they actually are true or false?

That depends entirely on what you think are the fundamental concepts of religion. 

I had in mind something like The Profession of Faith of A Savoyard Vicar by Rousseau (which is a great read, by the way, and includes a fine dismantling of the "evidence" of miracles in Part V), or to give a more concise account, that offered by Thomas Paine in the Conclusion to his Age of Reason:

Quote:I have said, in the first part of the Age of Reason, that "I hope for happiness after this life." This hope is comfortable to me, and I presume not to go beyond the comfortable idea of hope, with respect to a future state.

I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with his justice and goodness. I leave all these matters to him, as my Creator and friend, and I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter.

I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child, that it imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made, in eternal existence hereafter. It is in his power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in our power to decide which he will do.

The book called the New Testament, which I hold to be fabulous and have shown to be false, gives an account in the 25th chapter of Matthew, of what is there called the last day, or the day of judgment. The whole world, according to that account, is divided into two parts, the righteous and the unrighteous, figuratively called the sheep and the goats. They are then to receive their sentence. To the one, figuratively called the sheep, it says, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." To the other, figuratively called the goats, it says, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Now the case is, the world cannot be thus divided — the moral world, like the physical world, is composed of numerous degrees of character, running imperceptibly one into the other, in such a manner that no fixed point of division can be found in either. That point is no where, or is every where. The whole world might be divided into two parts numerically, but not as to moral character; and, therefore, the metaphor of dividing them, as sheep and goats can be divided, whose difference is marked by their external figure, is absurd. All sheep are still sheep; all goats are still goats; it is their physical nature to be so. But one part of the world are not all good alike, nor the other part all wicked alike. There are some exceedingly good; others exceedingly wicked. There is another description of men who cannot be ranked with either the one or the other — they belong neither to the sheep nor the goats.

My own opinion is, that those whose lives have been spent in doing good, and endeavouring to make their fellow-mortals happy, for this is the only way in which we can serve God, will be happy hereafter: and that the very wicked will meet with some punishment. This is my opinion. It is consistent with my idea of God's justice, and with the reason that God has given me.

Quote:Mudhammam:

Most of us are familiar with the ills of faith, whether one speaks of the narrow-mindedness it often creates, or its pseudo-solutions to difficult problems, the discouragement of curiosity it entails when overlapping with matters of speculation (metaphysics, ethics, physical anomalies, etc.); the zeal, sometimes dogmatical and violent, that pervade the holy texts and which people inevitably interpret in accordance with their temperament; the bloody theological wars that are waged, and so on.  Many of us have felt the harm of indoctrination and religious intolerance at one point or another in our personal lives, and I cannot conceive that anybody, believer or infidel, could dispute that many faiths bring more harm than good into the world -- a problem that strikes at the center of this notion of religious faith.  Not to set aside the harm, but are there any benefits to religious faith that are unique to its exercise, and do any of them offset the costs in such a way as to justify faith even to the extent of accepting certain of its propositions as "noble lies," that is, claims that are probably false but beneficial to society?  I do not have in mind mere charity or the promulgation of a particular ethic, or a magnificent work of art, for these are wholly distinct from the mythologies that comprise my conception of religious faith (wherein one confuses these mythologies with factual knowledge).  I rather mean possible benefits such as the optimism it bestows upon one's view of the world, that all injustices will at some time be made right, that death is the not permanent annihilation of everything that has ever been good or lovable about life, that each individual has an integral role which they are under obligation to fulfill given the circumstances in which they have been placed, and that the endless humiliations that some wretched souls have been subjected to carry some sort of merit.  These are ideas that don't much register on my worldview, or if they do it is in a context that largely changes their import, but I can certainly conceive of scenarios in which it might be nice to believe that they did.  Is there any form of genuine piety that is rational given the existential situation in which human beings find themselves, or is there an underlying irrationality to our existence that at least makes religious faith justifiable?   It seems that any analysis must weigh the pros against the cons.  I'm inclined to think that -- and it appears that recorded history confirms this at the turn of every century -- the costs outweigh the benefits, and moreover, that the redemption promised to the faithful is in some sense based on an erroneous idea that our beliefs about otherwordly events determines the facticity of said events.  Suppose the benefits I suggested are all true; or even that the ideas from which the benefits are derived contain something of the truth; can my doubts about them change that?  If I die and find out that I was wrong about some metaphysical claim, is it reasonable to suspect that my life or future life is liable to suffer because of such doubt, even if at the moment I feel more sincere and generally more content given my suspension of belief?  

The follow-up question is this: Is it better to live as if the fundamental concepts of religion are true or false, irrespective of whether they actually are true or false?

Thoughts?

First of all, I see a need that greater distinction be made between "faith" vs "religion".

It is possible to have Faith, without Religion.

To me, put simply, Faith is simply the raw, unrefined belief in God.
"Faith" does not necessarily need to have a dogma to it;
"Faith" does not necessarily require that God have parameters.

For example, someone might have great Faith that God exists,
...but not necessarily believe that "God is good".

They might believe wholeheartedly that there IS, in fact, a God out there...
but be equally prepared to accept that that God might very well be cruel, evil, or indifferent.

So, in its raw form, I don't really have a problem with "Faith", in and of itself,
as long as the holder of that Faith is completely open-minded about what God may or may not be like.

To my mind, it is only when a person chooses to limit and define their Faith according to a given dogma,
that it becomes a Religion.

(And to my mind, it is also at that point that it completely ceases to be about Truth,
and it therefore becomes complete balderdash for the practitioner of that religion to claim that they are "serving God" by adhering to a Religious dogma;

and this is because, ironically,
...while most major religions equate God with Truth...
isn't it absurd to claim that one is serving "the Truth"
if one is prepared to accept only one unproven dogma, out of hundreds, as the only valid possibility, based on no factual evidence whatsoever, and shut out every other possibility that might exist, about God,
if it is unaligned with the dogma one has chosen?

Ironically, in this respect, Science, with all its open-mindedness and disciplined pursuit of the Truth,
actually serves God, assuming there is actually a God out there to be served,
far better than Religion ever could.

It seems obvious to me that people choose a Religion either because:
- the tenets of that particular religion appeal to that individual
- or because they are simply raised under the thumb of that Religion and simply are not strong enough to break free from it
- or they choose to remain part of it for reasons other than serving God....like, perhaps, pleasing their parents, or avoiding social persecution for heresy or non-conformity.

But the reasons for adhering to a Religion are always about ANYTHING BUT serving God;
they are usually entirely selfish, in one form or another.

And therefore, it seems fairly obvious to me that, given this logic,
one cannot serve BOTH a Religion,
AND serve God...aka "The Truth"....at the same time.

To my mind, in order to serve God with any degree of integrity,
one must be prepared to completely jettison any and all religions and dogmas.

If you really want to serve God, you must be prepared to accept Him in whatever form He comes.
Even if it is a form that you personally dislike or are disappointed by).


-It gives people a last-ditch hope that cannot be effaced...one I now do not have, and despair as a result.
 
- The church itself creates a sense of community...like an extended family

...and many positive by-products, along with it, such as structure in life, standards to maintain, a sense of sanctity and tranquillity.

and I personally miss all these things in my life,
having discarded religion.

But I see theses things as the beneficial stuff that grows on the surface of a corrosive thing;
much like the natural growth that has flourished in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.


To answer the secondary question:

Is it better to "live as if...", regardless of what actually IS?

that depends entirely on the perspective of the individual.

It is like asking an alcoholic who lives in a perpetual boozy haze, if it is better to be sober, or drunk?

In his haze, he feels no pain....so what matters it, really, if he causes pain to others?

Or even if he ultimately destroys himself?

He is in no pain.

Likewise, the self-deluded religious nut is snugly-wrapped in their illusions,
it is a question of what will yield them more comfort:

The Truth...however painful it may be?

Or their Comfortable Lies?

Here is the problem with "modern day faith"

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—


No amount of belief makes substance or evidence, not from yourself means NOT FROM YOUR SELF. It is a gift OF God.

"Just have faith" is then a meaningless statement. It would be like saying "just have a promotion" or "just have health".
It comes out of a fundamental misunderstanding of how these things operate.


The negative consequences of losing this definition in our spiritual journey/operation, to meaning "really really really strong man-made belief to the point of ignoring all else", cannot be overstated.

(September 10, 2016 at 10:46 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Here is the problem with "modern day faith"

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—


No amount of belief makes substance or evidence, not from yourself means NOT FROM YOUR SELF.  It is a gift OF God.

The negative consequences of losing this definition in our spiritual journey/operation, to meaning "really really really strong man-made belief to the point of ignoring all else", cannot be overstated.

Yes, but you are saying that as if you assume that the God is real,
and therefore your faith is "His gift to you".

You're rejecting, wholesale, two distinct possibilities:

1.  God doesn't exist at all...and you've merely convinced yourself that He does exist

(and therefore reject the idea that your God's existence,
and also your Faith in Him, are both creations of your own mind;
...Much like a stalker convinces himself that the girl he adores
MUST love him, when in fact she is oblivious to his existence....or actually thinks he's a creep).

2.  God DOES exist, but you've convinced yourself that your faith in Him must be "His Gift" to you,
when in fact He MAY ACTUALLY EXIST, but is a monster,
and your belief that He is a benefactor is sadly misplaced;

(Much like someone who believes that because polar bears look cute and cuddly,
then it MUST follow that if they reach through the bars of the cage just to gently pet the bear,
that the bear will love them....and will not shred the tissue from their bones).

(September 10, 2016 at 11:04 pm)MTL Wrote:

(September 10, 2016 at 10:46 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Here is the problem with "modern day faith"

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—


No amount of belief makes substance or evidence, not from yourself means NOT FROM YOUR SELF.  It is a gift OF God.

The negative consequences of losing this definition in our spiritual journey/operation, to meaning "really really really strong man-made belief to the point of ignoring all else", cannot be overstated.

Yes, but you are saying that as if you assume that the God is real,
and therefore your faith is "His gift to you".

You're rejecting, wholesale, two distinct possibilities:

1.  God doesn't exist at all...and you've merely convinced yourself that He does exist

(and therefore reject the idea that your God's existence,
and also your Faith in Him, are both creations of your own mind;
...Much like a stalker convinces himself that the girl he adores
MUST love him, when in fact she is oblivious to his existence....or actually thinks he's a creep).

2.  God DOES exist, but you've convinced yourself that your faith in Him must be "His Gift" to you,
when in fact He MAY ACTUALLY EXIST, but is a monster,
and your belief that He is a benefactor is sadly misplaced;

(Much like someone who believes that because polar bears look cute and cuddly,
then it MUST follow that if they reach through the bars of the cage just to gently pet the bear,
that the bear will love them....and will not shred the tissue from their bones).

None of that has anything to do with the definition/operation of the word in the context and culture at the time of it's use.

Great analogy BTW!

Here's mine: It's like someone saying "Superman is from the planet Samson and his weakness is Samsonite." And I'm saying "Whoa, whoa, whoa slow down man, you clearly have some shit mixed up! That is not at all what the comic says....I know, I know it's "just a story" but if Superman does turn out to be real, and he's a major dick, you're not going to improve your situation by throwing your luggage at him. What you are looking for is called "kryptonite." You can't make it....it just falls from the sky.....like a gift. Good luck!"

(September 10, 2016 at 7:31 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 10, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Whateverist Wrote: But there are a few view points I share with theists without paying the toll in cognitive dissonance they do.  Like theists, I believe there is more wisdom available than is at my disposal.  But no external genie is needed for that.  Look for it instead in the depths of who you are beyond your conscious mind.  All manner of insight and inspiration can be found therein.  So where they pray for a gift from without, I simply tap the source we all have on board.  It is still a gift which can be revoked at any time, so some reverence for the source is warranted.  So humility too is available without the contrast to an omni-anything being.

Careful...you're entering dangerous "the kingdom of heaven is within you" territory.

Assuming we are speaking allegorically .. where else would/could it be?  The mistake is to think 'God' created the cosmos.  Obviously false.  He also didn't create me or any other physical thing.  But, if you are looking for a place to tuck God in, where better than your own little brain?

All the talk in Genesis of separating up from down and dark from light and so on is best understood as the eve-devo development of our own consciousness.  'God' got me squared away in the womb and built the world as it exists in my mind.  'He' also created 'me' - as in whatever it is that makes me distinctive as an individual.  Since 'God' didn't actually create even one physical thing, there need be no gotcha moment regarding creating trees before the sun.  The world as it exists in my comprehension isn't subject to those kinds of causal connections.  It can be put together in whatever order and manner that is necessary.

Still, there is plenty of reason to suspect there is knowledge and wisdom within which you can only sometimes tap.  The conscious mind is a tool created to serve the total self.  Drive it into a ditch and you can be grounded .. from within.  'God' exists if you want to call it that - but I don't.

(September 10, 2016 at 11:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Assuming we are speaking allegorically .. where else would/could it be?  The mistake is to think 'God' created the cosmos.  Obviously false.  He also didn't create me or any other physical thing.  But, if you are looking for a place to tuck God in, where better than your own little brain?

All the talk in Genesis of separating up from down and dark from light and so on is best understood as the eve-devo development of our own consciousness.  'God' got me squared away in the womb and built the world as it exists in my mind.  'He' also created 'me' - as in whatever it is that makes me distinctive as an individual.  Since 'God' didn't actually create even one physical thing, there need be no gotcha moment regarding creating trees before the sun.  The world as it exists in my comprehension isn't subject to those kinds of causal connections.  It can be put together in whatever order and manner that is necessary.

Still, there is plenty of reason to suspect there is knowledge and wisdom within which you can only sometimes tap.  The conscious mind is a tool created to serve the total self.  Drive it into a ditch and you can be grounded .. from within.  'God' exists if you want to call it that - but I don't.

What part of the brain? And what makes the space inside my brain different from the space outside? If we are talking about the mind, does it have volume so that "God" could hide within or a membrane "God" might be lurking beneath?

I also see Genesis through metaphoric eyes... A "day" in old term can also mean a realm or world. The "day" as described in Genesis is from evening to morning....a relative falling and a rising of light.

Genesis 1:55..... there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Non-relatively there has only ever been "one day" on planet earth...think from the perspective of the sun.


Many new versions have "the first day" but in Hebrew the word is "e-had" and it means the number 1 http://biblehub.com/hebrew/echad_259.htm

These mean "first/chief/foremost" and could have been used:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7225.htm
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7223.htm

(September 11, 2016 at 12:24 am)Arkilogue Wrote: What part of the brain?  And what makes the space inside my brain different from the space outside? If we are talking about the mind, does it have volume so that "God" could hide within or a membrane "God" might be lurking beneath?

In the way I was speaking of 'God' (note the scare quotes) there is no separate thing called God which one can literally find - inside or otherwise.

(September 11, 2016 at 12:24 am)Arkilogue Wrote: I also see Genesis through metaphoric eyes...  A "day" in old term can also mean a realm or world. The "day" as described in Genesis is from evening to morning....a relative falling and a rising of light.

Genesis 1:55..... there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Non-relatively there has only ever been "one day" on planet earth...think from the perspective of the sun.  


Many new versions have "the first day" but in Hebrew the word is "e-had" and it means the number 1 http://biblehub.com/hebrew/echad_259.htm

These mean "first/chief/foremost" and could have been used:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7225.htm
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7223.htm

But do you still think a creator being made everything from nothing, yada yada yada? Time to get real here, no god anywhere ever made one physical thing - let alone everything.

Muslim fate doesn't have "benefits" - too much violence towards infidels and apostates.

Christianity has benefits. It would be great if its followers didn't preach by alluding that their lifestyle is superior and yours is "empty" and that you will pay for not giving up your free will to serve the Lord will.

(September 11, 2016 at 12:34 am)Whateverist Wrote: But do you still think a creator being made everything from nothing, yada yada yada?  Time to get real here, no god anywhere ever made one physical thing - let alone everything.

No. In a highly abridged nutshell, I think God 'created' a nothing space in the middle of All-Thingness (the infinite body of God) and little bits of thingness got flung around in the new space created.

I believe that mass is neither created nor destroyed. I believe what was "created" was a void space for preexistent matter to move through thus beginning relative time.

The universe was not created "ex nihilo" the space of the universe is the "nihilo" created in order for time to happen.


Fun exercise: Draw or make an engraving of absolute solidity that has no external border.