A Question for Believers and Non Believers

[Nick_A]

Religion isn't a search for truth: It is the satisfaction with the truth being out of reach and the creation of a smoke and mirror show to keep the oppressed reproducing.

You seem to be describing secularized religion the function of which is societal. This thread is about the essence of religion the purpose of which is to aid in "awakening." That is why I quoted Simone in the OP.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Can a believer and non believer be open to the possibility that their supernatural part is yet to be awakened?

Can you be open to the idea that your concept of religion is not the same as the conscious intent of a spiritual teaching that ends up devolving into society, becoming secularized, and losing its awakening purpose?

[Epimethean]

Aligning the allegory of the cave with religion is more Neo-Platonic than factual. The metaphor of the sun does not presuppose religion but nature and knowledge as the source of illumination. Religion and science are at cross purposes. While there may be religious scientists, these are often hamstrung by allegiances to their churches and so, seldom real seekers of truth. This "essence" of religion you continue to promulgate may once have been prescientific aetiology, but one need only observe the ways in which religion views science as a threat to understand that the two have been enemies for ages.

---

"Can a believer and non believer be open to the possibility that their supernatural part is yet to be awakened?"

You see, here is where you go off the rails, identifying yourself strictly as a religious person. I am not one, nor am I open to accepting religious premises. The supernatural is bunk. You'd have more success here selling snake oil.

[Nick_A]

Aligning the allegory of the cave with religion is more Neo-Platonic than factual. The metaphor of the sun does not presuppose religion but nature and knowledge as the source of illumination. Religion and science are at cross purposes. While there may be religious scientists, these are often hamstrung by allegiances to their churches and so, seldom real seekers of truth. This "essence" of religion you continue to promulgate may once have been prescientific aetiology, but one need only observe the ways in which religion views science as a threat to understand that the two have been enemies for ages.

---

"Can a believer and non believer be open to the possibility that their supernatural part is yet to be awakened?"

You see, here is where you go off the rails, identifying yourself strictly as a religious person. I am not one, nor am I open to accepting religious premises. The supernatural is bunk. You'd have more success here selling snake oil.

So it is safe to assume that you do not have a supernatural part that is yet to be awakened. Fair enough but have you ever wondered why Plato would write the cave analogy or Buddhism would preach the parable of the Burning House suggesting that we live in dreams? Obviously either they are missing something or you are? How is one to know?

[Faith No More]

...have you ever wondered why Plato would write the cave analogy or Buddhism would preach the parable of the Burning House suggesting that we live in dreams? Obviously either they are missing something or you are? How is one to know?

These stories are more about the search for truth and knowledge than they are about any sort of supernatural awakening. To me, the cave analogy is more about how there are higher truths beyond what we see right in front of us. One could interpret that as an analogy for religion, but it is not necessarily so. The burning house is analogous to Buddha trying to lead people to the truth. I'm curious, how did you come about the interpretation that it suggest we live in dreams?

[Anymouse]

"intersubjectively verifiable data evidenced by the scientific method", I shall keep this phrase at hand then ;P

Say it often and especially when having sex. It really gets em going.

Even my wife the rabid fundamentalist atheist (is there such a thing? A tent revival to preach the gospel of nothing?) would slap me if I tried something like that.

On the other hand, slap me . . . might work.

Not that I am kinky, just need inspiration for editing Romance novels.

[Epimethean]

So it is safe to assume that you do not have a supernatural part that is yet to be awakened. Fair enough but have you ever wondered why Plato would write the cave analogy or Buddhism would preach the parable of the Burning House suggesting that we live in dreams? Obviously either they are missing something or you are? How is one to know?

If it is safe to assume that this is so for one, it is safe to assume that it may be so for many, which gets me on the same page as faithnomore in asking you, why do you think this is or has to be a foundation for religion. Are you willing to accept that you may be completely misleading yourself into needing an explanation here which the author did not intend?

[Nick_A]

...have you ever wondered why Plato would write the cave analogy or Buddhism would preach the parable of the Burning House suggesting that we live in dreams? Obviously either they are missing something or you are? How is one to know?

These stories are more about the search for truth and knowledge than they are about any sort of supernatural awakening. To me, the cave analogy is more about how there are higher truths beyond what we see right in front of us. One could interpret that as an analogy for religion, but it is not necessarily so. The burning house is analogous to Buddha trying to lead people to the truth. I'm curious, how did you come about the interpretation that it suggest we live in dreams?

As I' understand it, Man has the potential for conscious evolution but it can only be built on a foundation of experiencing ones inner life and the external world for what it is: the genuine seach for truth and knowledge. The chaotic human condition perverts the objective search preferring instead self justification and the defense of imagination. Religion is perverted to support this tendency for self justifiction.

This tendency is symbolized by the Devil in Christianity and Mara in Buddhism. Man is tempted to sacrifice the real for the imaginary. Sacrificing attachment to the goals of the "world," "false gods" and the meanings they supply for the sake of conscious growth, becoming oneself. The secularization of religion has largely led to justifying our imagination.

Here is a bit about Mara.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/iconsofbuddhism/a/mara.htm

[Epimethean]

I'll agree with you on one issue: Religion is perverted.

[chatpilot]

Hi All

I've come to believe that neither science and the essence of religion nor the essence of religion and atheism are mutually exclusive. In fact I now believe they are complimentary.

I know this seems odd so I'd like to post a quote from Simone Weil to illustrate what I believe to be the means for the unification of atheism and the essence of religion. I'd like to learn if you are open to this possibility or just find it ridiculous.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Can a believer and non believer be open to the possibility that their supernatural part is yet to be awakened?

Sorry for the late reply but this is in my view a ridiculous notion. Having been a former theist myself I could assure you that I have explored my supernatural side to no avail. I did have many apparent supernatural experiences as a Pentecostal evangelist but upon reflection I think it was my willingness to believe that made it real for me. Looking back to those experiences I can and have explained them all away to my satisfaction.

[Faith No More]

As I' understand it, Man has the potential for conscious evolution but it can only be built on a foundation of experiencing ones inner life and the external world for what it is: the genuine seach for truth and knowledge. The chaotic human condition perverts the objective search preferring instead self justification and the defense of imagination. Religion is perverted to support this tendency for self justifiction.

This tendency is symbolized by the Devil in Christianity and Mara in Buddhism. Man is tempted to sacrifice the real for the imaginary. Sacrificing attachment to the goals of the "world," "false gods" and the meanings they supply for the sake of conscious growth, becoming oneself. The secularization of religion has largely led to justifying our imagination.

Here is a bit about Mara.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/iconsofbuddhism/a/mara.htm

I understand that, but from interpreting exactly what you have said, it almost sounds as if the point is that there is no room for the supernatural. It seems the only basis for understanding and knowledge should be rational and based on observable evidence. This includes philosophy, which are hypotheses based upon observable evidence. I'm still not seeing where the supernatural is being referred to at all.