Thoughts on Atheism

[MaryLupin]

It's like the sun, where do measure it's boundary? It's kind of hard to. It's easy to say, I end at the skin, and it's fairly clear. It's less clear with the sun, though; it has no skin, and it's heat and energy and light extend very far. It's hard to say where the surface is. I think it's the same with us, we're just not taught to think that way.

I like this. It reminds me of The Turning Point by Fritjof Capra. I actually had an experience like that once while I was walking around in London. It was wonderful. What I experienced was being overwhelmed by the sun, joined with it as it were. (Weird stuff happens to me.) As surely as I know that my fingers pressing these keys are causing these letters to appear, I knew all kinds of things about the nature of the world in which I lived. (Never found it necessary to have a god to explain the experience though, but maybe that is because I already knew something about brain chemistry and mechanics and maybe if people who are imbibed in the god-story before science experience this kind of transcendental awe they just gravitate to what they know to explain the sensation?)

Overwhelming as it was, even so, in the midst of the experience there was still me there, this composite of feeling, memory, knowledge and sensory apparatus. It is that composite that I think of as the self. Kind of like the Buddhist concept of skandhas. And while it is true that it is pretty much impossible to draw a line around what we are, there is still a recognizable pattern to it...to what it means to be an individual...a human.

Actually, you know, I think "self" is properly a verb.

[NikolaiI]

What is this silly solipsistic folderol? I have received emails from someone who purported to be "Nikolai1" and I (who have no doubt as to my existence) know also that but for some unfortunate materialistic misadventure these very words that I am typing are going to be read by that same Nikolai1.

You may enjoy this sort of metaphysical macrame but I doubt you could make pancakes out of it whereas I (who have no doubt as to my existence) can make truly excellent pancakes out of a mix that I have here in my actual home in this actual city in this actual universe...

My ontology also tells me that we're all family.

[NikolaiI]

I like this. It reminds me of The Turning Point by Fritjof Capra. I actually had an experience like that once while I was walking around in London. It was wonderful. What I experienced was being overwhelmed by the sun, joined with it as it were. (Weird stuff happens to me.) As surely as I know that my fingers pressing these keys are causing these letters to appear, I knew all kinds of things about the nature of the world in which I lived. (Never found it necessary to have a god to explain the experience though, but maybe that is because I already knew something about brain chemistry and mechanics and maybe if people who are imbibed in the god-story before science experience this kind of transcendental awe they just gravitate to what they know to explain the sensation?)

Overwhelming as it was, even so, in the midst of the experience there was still me there, this composite of feeling, memory, knowledge and sensory apparatus. It is that composite that I think of as the self. Kind of like the Buddhist concept of skandhas. And while it is true that it is pretty much impossible to draw a line around what we are, there is still a recognizable pattern to it...to what it means to be an individual...a human.

Actually, you know, I think "self" is properly a verb.

Hehe. You know, I have been under the fairly powerful illusion that I've made the clouds move, that is, made them start and stop, and even change directions, just with my mind. It's very interesting what you said about your experience, I think that kind of thing is good, since we are feeling the world, with our nerves and what not, and we are in a very real sense directly connected to it. From sensations on our fingers to our brain, we are connected. I don't know if this makes any sense, but it's what came to mind reading your post.

I feel the same way about not needing a god to explain it. My parents - my father was atheist, and my mother Christian, and I was raised by her to believe in God, and I did. I mean I guess I did. But at one point I realized I didn't, mainly because I didn't see any reason to. I became gradually aware of the opposing sides and the debates and arguments for it. I knew there were books about the subject, but I also knew there was nothing more, nothing deeper than anything I knew or had experienced, since my mother was very intelligent and had gone to ministry and had enlightened view of Christianity. I decided atheism was the truth..

About the self and other, I just see no need for it either. I guess. I mean I understand the idea of self, and in fact everything is based on that, and there's a lot of strength in the idea, but I don't think it's pure reality. I think atiguhya padma said it best when he said "everything you see is you." It might seem a paradox, but I think it's accurate.

And interesting, perhaps not wholly relevant, is this quote by the Buddha about, I think, the infinite.

Buddha said: "I consider the positions of kings and rulers as that of dust motes. I observe treasures of gold and gems as so many bricks and pebbles. I look upon the finest silken robes as tattered rags. I see myriad worlds of the universe as small seeds of fruit, and the greatest lake in India as a drop of oil on my foot. I perceive the teachings of the world to be the illusion of magicians. I discern the highest conception of emancipation as a golden brocade in a dream, and view the holy path of the illuminated ones as flowers appearing in one's eyes. I see meditation as a pillar of a mountain, Nirvana as a nightmare of daytime. I look upon the judgment of right and wrong as the serpentine dance of a dragon, and the rise and fall of beliefs as but traces left by the four seasons."

[RobinHood3000]

It's like the sun, where do measure it's boundary? It's kind of hard to. It's easy to say, I end at the skin, and it's fairly clear. It's less clear with the sun, though; it has no skin, and it's heat and energy and light extend very far. It's hard to say where the surface is. I think it's the same with us, we're just not taught to think that way.

You may be interested to know that the physical body of the Sun does have discernible layers and boundaries, the names of which you can find in most high school earth science textbooks.

[NikolaiI]

To quote Alan Watts: "Let me show you the same phenomenon in the dimension of space instead of the dimension of time. Let's ask 'How big is the sun?' Are we going to define the sun as limited by the extent of its fire? That's one possible definition. But we could equally well define the sphere of the sun by the extent of its heat. We could also define sphere of the sun by the extent of its light. And each of these would be reasonable choices, except that it's rather difficult to keep track of the extent of its light, because we are inside it. And therefore we have arbitrarily agreed to define the sun by the limit of its visible fire. But you will see by all these analogies that how big a thing is, or how long an event is, is simply a matter of definition. Now, therefore, when by simple definition, for purposes of discussion, we have divided events into certain periods, we say, "The First World War began in 1913, and ended in 1918." Now actually, all those things which lead up to the First World War started long before 1913, and the repercussions of that war have continued long beyond 1918. How are we to distguish an event from its repercussions? So you see, because we have divided events, from one another, in this arbitrary way, we do that, and then we sort of forget that we did that. And then we have a puzzle! How do events come from one another? Because in reality, there are no seperate events. Life move alongs like water. And, it's all connected like the source of a river is connected to the mouth of an ocean. And all the events, or things going on, are like whirlpools in this stream. Because you go there today, and you see a whirlpool. You go there tomorrow, and you see a whirlpool. But it isn't the same whirlpool, because all the water is changing every second. What is happening is not really what we should call a whirlpool, but rather a whirlpooling. It is an activity, not a thing. And indeed ever so-called thing can be called an event. We call, say a house, housing..."

That went long beyond the sun definition, but I didn't know where to stop. It's not a written article originally, its from a youtube video, I just typed it out. Just before he talks about the sun thing, he is talking about when do we conceive of life, and he is actually very eloquent, it's worth seeing. The whole thing in general is about time. Anyway, that video is here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rTaklXTSDPE.

I guess what I get from it is how arbitrary the definition we decide of the sun is. The limit of its visible fire. Why not the limit of its light or heat? If we do that, we have a different way of looking at things, and we keep in mind how the sun is part of every star's light that reaches it, and how we are in fact inside the sun. And just because we are not able to say how large the sun is, in our terms of space, I think it's perfectly reasonable to define the sun by the extent of its light and heat. Why not?

[Redzeppelin]

As I think I suggested before, it might be more informative if we got into our personal reasons for the choices we have made. I know I have mine and am prepared to set them out if you are as well. I've bolded those parts of your latest posts that lead me to see that your argument is a personal rather than a purely philosophical/theological one:

Perhaps you ought to read my post a little closer next time. First, I did not present any "argument" pertaining to atheism or thesim; nor did I provide personal reasons for my choice to believe as I do; my comments were my observations on an attitude I find prevalent in the conversations of atheists in these discussion forums. Here's what you said that I've read here in countless permutations over the last 8 months or so:

I do speculate at times that those who involve themselves with the mind-boggling intricacies of their gods & goddesses stories are doing that in preference to dealing with "the exigencies of corporeal life".

This comment reveals the stereotypical attitude that we who believe in theism are somehow involved in some avoidance of day-to-day reality in our devotion to our spiritual lives ("mind-boggling intricacies of their gods..."). Such commentary moves from why YOU think atheism is correct to why you think WE do what we do. At that point, you are now discussing that which you do not know, nor completely understand.

You might wish to argue that to recognize, say, an oak tree as an oak tree is not a matter of choice. It is something apparent to all, but some (pantheists) see God in that oak tree. You, I assume, do not. And I take that as a matter of choice - or conditioning.

But the pantheist still acknowledges that the oak tree is an oak tree; he doesn't try to tell you it's God Himself. In other words, I call an oak tree and oak tree too - but I have a different explanation as to how it got here and why it does what it does.

PS - the subtle "conditioning" comment? That term goes both ways, by the way.

[MaryLupin]

I look upon the judgment of right and wrong as the serpentine dance of a dragon, and the rise and fall of beliefs as but traces left by the four seasons."

I hadn't read that one before. Yes. Reading any history at all is a lesson in how right this is.

You may be interested to know that the physical body of the Sun does have discernible layers and boundaries, the names of which you can find in most high school earth science textbooks.

Of course it does and I suspect Nikolai knows that, but the remarkable thing is that what we perceive as a boundary with one sense in not the same boundary we perceive with another. For example what we see as the surface of the sun is not its surface (if such a thing can be said to be true of the sun). We see it because the energy surges in a frequency perceivable by our eye. Yet our skin can also perceive the sun's energy (which is why I get brown on one side and stay pale on the other [driver's dilemma]. So the question...which is the true "surface" of the sun becomes possible because our senses both perceive a boundary but they are not the same. Of course the disagreement between our eyes and our skin is just that ... between the eyes and skin. It says nothing about the sun and its state. It only speaks of the differing capacities of our senses. To get to the true nature of the sun (reality) we would have to find a way to stand with and at the same time not with all of our senses operating under the guidance of some master synthesizer (normally the role we see reason playing.)

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;414029]But the pantheist still acknowledges that the oak tree is an oak tree; he doesn't try to tell you it's God Himself.{/QUOTE]

Actually a number of pantheists would say exactly that. The tree is god. Its flesh, bark, roots, xylem and phloem...god. And the grass is another god... and the waters...the fires, etc. The material world is not harboring god. It is god...at least for some.

[Redzeppelin]

Actually a number of pantheists would say exactly that. The tree is god. Its flesh, bark, roots, xylem and phloem...god. And the grass is another god... and the waters...the fires, etc. The material world is not harboring god. It is god...at least for some.

A fair correction (but the pantheist wouldn't try to tell you that the tree was a bird - the point being that spiritual people still understand the material world). Your correction also clarifies why pantheism fails to account for reality because it makes God a created thing - and He is the only uncreated thing in the universe.

[NikolaiI]

A fair correction (but the pantheist wouldn't try to tell you that the tree was a bird - the point being that spiritual people still understand the material world). Your correction also clarifies why pantheism fails to account for reality because it makes God a created thing - and He is the only uncreated thing in the universe.

God is not a thing, God is an action. Everything we think of as things is better described as actions, so it's not so much a God, but a Godding.

[Ludmila607]

Oh well maybe I went into Philosophy quiclky and forget to tell about own experience.It is sometimes hard to talk about personal experiences with religions and spirituality(without identify one to another).If you startr to talk about a personal experience of God can be acused of beig on a CAthequist...
I never try to convince anyone.I have a profound cponvinction of God or a Higher Intelligence, or Primal Force.Whatever you call it.I think it is not definible, not spatially situed, not explained by human concepts.I think it does express by everything that exists(am I a Pantheist?)from a glowing star to a piece of dirt.Religions make a mistake trying toi define, and poining rules and sins and simbols.But all this help humanity to raise from ANIMAL STATE
and have some control over society eveyday more complex and vaste.
I like to call god, Big Intelligence or Higher Reason , wich undestands wich we wont...

[Redzeppelin]

God is not a thing, God is an action. Everything we think of as things is better described as actions, so it's not so much a God, but a Godding.

[PrinceMyshkin]

But the pantheist still acknowledges that the oak tree is an oak tree; he doesn't try to tell you it's God Himself. In other words, I call an oak tree and oak tree too - but I have a different explanation as to how it got here and why it does what it does.

PS - the subtle "conditioning" comment? That term goes both ways, by the way.

MaryLupin will have corrected you on the first part of this statement. As to your PS, you flatter me (I think): I didn't think my reference to conditoining was subtle. It goes to the heart of my belief that believers, once they have made the choice to believe (or it had been made for them by their upbringing and peer-pressure) then seek out that which will reinforce their beliefs: e.g. Sunday School; regular church attendance; Bible Study groups...

No one, so far as I am aware, conditioned me to my doubts as to a) the knowable existence of God; b) His Her or Its nature if indeed there is a God; c) the authority on which the myriad of mini-popes pronounce on "God's" intentions, whether by ingenious readings of the existing texts or simply - as far asis apparent - by virtue of divine guidance, or their intuitions.

My reading has been haphazard and random; I've never had an atheist or an agnostic mentor.

[Redzeppelin]

MaryLupin will have corrected you on the first part of this statement. As to your PS, you flatter me (I think): I didn't think my reference to conditoining was subtle. It goes to the heart of my belief that believers, once they have made the choice to believe (or it had been made for them by their upbringing and peer-pressure) then seek out that which will reinforce their beliefs: e.g. Sunday School; regular church attendance; Bible Study groups...

No one, so far as I am aware, conditioned me to my doubts as to a) the knowable existence of God; b) His Her or Its nature if indeed there is a God; c) the authority on which the myriad of mini-popes pronounce on "God's" intentions, whether by ingenious readings of the existing texts or simply - as far asis apparent - by virtue of divine guidance, or their intuitions.

My reading has been haphazard and random; I've never had an atheist or an agnostic mentor.

You make vast and stereotypical assumptions about religious belief and how people come to choose it. The term "conditioning" is interesting - it is applicable in some situations, no doubt - but there are many things we "condition" people to do and believe (we call some of them things like "manners" and "morals") and nobody seems to have a big issue with that kind of "conditioning."

Either way, do you find it strange that people seek out others like themselves? I mean, come on - you think atheists go and find churches to go hang out in? Your criticizing believers for being normal - all people seek out those who resemble themselves in some ways. Who goes out and seeks company composed of people fully different from ourselves?

Secondly, I think you radically underestimate "cultural conditioning" (I'll borrow your term here). Culture is encoded with many, many conventions and assumptions - a large majority of which go unquestioned/unexamined by people. For example - if you were raised in an atheistic home and went to public schools, you were given textbooks that tacitly ASSUMED evolution to be FACT (rather than a theory); as well, turn on your TV: newscasts routinely pass on comments that appear to confirm the factuality of evolution. That's just one example of cultural conditioning - young people grow up assuming evolution to be true because their culture fed to them from the beginning the idea that it was. Ditto for something more trivial like (here we go!) women shaving their legs and underarms: your average US male freaks out about the idea that European women don't see the need to be as obsessive as US women do - and why is that? Are European males less discerning? Or have the US males simply been conditioned to certain ideas about feminine beauty?

You may not have had a direct "mentor" - but there's plenty of "conditioning" that culture gives - and not all of it is correct. Modern culture - since the 18th century Enlightenment - has largely predicated its existence on the idea of Naturalism/materialism and that science is the arbiter of what is "real."

You've been "conditioned" as much as any Christian - just in a different way.

[PrinceMyshkin]

God is not a thing, God is an action. Everything we think of as things is better described as actions, so it's not so much a God, but a Godding.

I dissent with this. I do not think "God" is either a thing nor an action. I suggest that God was originally a conjecture that hardened over the years into a plausibility, then a probability and finally a carved-in-stone (so to speak) certainty, gathering to it a heirarchy of administrators, salesmen, interpreters, translators and buildings that grew larger and more splendiferous and that in themselves attested or were taken to attest to the majesty of "God," the most successful metaphor in human history.

[MaryLupin]

Your correction also clarifies why pantheism fails to account for reality because it makes God a created thing - and He is the only uncreated thing in the universe.

It is the only uncreated thing in your universe. Many traditions have stories about the creation and/or birth of their gods. As an account of reality, pantheism easily makes as much sense as a virgin birth and an uncreated creator. These things are an act of faith...whether to feel the divine curling with the edge of a leaf as it falls in autumn...or to interpret ecstasy as the touch of god's grace...both are subjective, both have belief/thought systems to back them up (i.e. holy books and sacred stories), both are fundamentally unprovable. Because of that they can only be said to "account for reality" if the basic premises are accepted as true, and pantheists will not accept that god is outside the material world and christians will not accept that it is not. All we can argue (with reason) is whether the system is coherent, whether the system is practicable, or specific facts (i.e. history, translation, textual).