Former atheist speaks out...

[David Quinn]

Well, you really are a 'priesthood', almost literally. You are certainly theologians with an establsihed doctrne. You define God and you define an ethic for living in accord with your definition. You defend against all comers. You have set up this forum expressly and uniquely to spread your message, I assume (is there an alternative view possible?).

No, you're still barking up the wrong tree.

Let's take it slowly. Consider science, for example. Do you consider the scientific community to be a priesthood? When they defend the validity of the scientific method, and the proper practice of it, against the various claims made by charlatans, such as Christian fundamentalists, does that make them theologians?

What do you think?

-

[Jamesh]

The thread opener was about as blindingly obviously contrived as a bear and a pope discussing the merits of christianity whilst taking a shit in the woods together.

I hope everyone put an effort into imagining this scenario...most humorous.

[DHodges]

Keep in mind that my original post was a reaction of astonishment and disbelief that someone could one day be 'Nietzsche on steroids' and a frequent reader of Solway, and then one day convert to one of the crudest religious sentiments that humanity has ever known.

Perhaps he just neglected to mention the incident that caused the brain damage.

[Alex Jacob]

David wrote:

"When they defend the validity of the scientific method, and the proper practice of it, against the various claims made by charlatans, such as Christian fundamentalists, does that make them theologians?"

I think a great deal goes over your head, David. And it is just because your 'head' has not been sufficiently prepared. I don't think you are really able, and of course you are not interested, in taking into consideration the multivalent way that ideas---Christian ideas in this case---operate within our cultural matrix. As far as I am concerned you and all others are right to take issue with Christian fundamentalists, the socially psychotic. (I explained in some detail that all can be and should be re-refracted through our modern conceptions).

But these ideas have also come manifest themselves in very different ways, and the best of the best of it can be quite sublime. In any case, it is not something that can just be dismissed with a wave of an imperious hand. I think one needs to take the time to understand, not just to sweep aside.

You would have to have had some background education to appreciate it, and I think in your case you would need to see beyond some of the 'aesthetic' prejudices you have established as part of your perceptive lens: the 'higher expressions' of the best of the best of Christianity are often expressed in works of art, in poetry, and in a kind of application of theology which is not the same as the mind-set of 'scientific method'. Living of life is an art of that sort, in my opinion. It is not dry scientism. That I have to explain this to you, a grown man, is appalling. Generally, it is very difficult for the fellows here (the mathematical sorts) to grasp this idea and so much that ramifies from it. It requires a subtlety that you really don't have. It is an 'organ' of perception that you simply don't possess, from the looks of it.

You cannot compare yourself with a 'scientist', you fool. It is really the most stupid argument I have seen from you. You can try to peg your theology to a neo-scientific methodology---and you would not be the first---yet the whole domain with which you involve yourself is just not comparable. This is so obvious it does not require discussion. Yet, you really do see it as such. I think you are sincere in this. Again, you simply do not have the background to be able to understand what I am talking about.

The 'better minds' (in my opinion of course) are able to make a bridge between what might be called two distinct minds, and their intellectual output is rich, valuable, interesting and thought-provoking. Perhaps the most notable, in our modern context, is Aldous Huxley. I have the impression that he is able to straddle two different mind-sets or disciplines: the scientific-rational and the intuitive-spiritual-aesthetic. In comparison to this sort of attainment, which is very significant and very sublime, you seem quite a few steps 'behind'.

[Alex Jacob]

Jason wrote:

"I said what I needed to in my previous post to this thread. Are you going to respond to it?"

No one could respond to those three words (if I understand that to be your last post). They could mean almost anything. Do I really need to point this out? If you come right out and say whatever it is you want to say, then yes.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

AJ: Jason's post was an example (or, you could argue, a failed attempt to create an example) of an absolute truth that never shifts. Complaining about the extreme brevity is kind of silly, when you take into consideration the long tradition of philosophers who try to state certainties in sentences of similar length, and with no further explanation.

(Lao Tzu: "The way that can be walked is not the constant Way."
Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Locke: "All events have a cause.")

[Jason]

Jason wrote:

"I said what I needed to in my previous post to this thread. Are you going to respond to it?"

No one could respond to those three words (if I understand that to be your last post). They could mean almost anything. Do I really need to point this out? If you come right out and say whatever it is you want to say, then yes.

Actually, yeah, you did need to point that out. I guess I've been immersed in these ideas for so long that I forgot that many people, even on GF, wouldn't understand what I was trying to express with those three words. Let's go back to what you wrote, and what I was responding to:

What I find interesting is how our beliefs and our 'certainties', indeed any idea we have about 'absolute truth', is something that can shift. When once we thought of things being one way, and we were very fixed in that, later something happened and we sees things in a radically different light.

Ok, so what I was attempting to communicate was something along the lines of: it is absolutely certain that I am experiencing the sensation "red" at this moment(I am looking at a rose) That is a certainty that cannot be overturned, what do you think?

[Jason]

Complaining about the extreme brevity is kind of silly, when you take into consideration the long tradition of philosophers who try to state certainties in sentences of similar length, and with no further explanation.

Why should a long tradition of philosophers doing something make it right?

Also, I don't see that Alex was critical of my brevity as such, he was critical of the fact that my words didn't clearly convey my message to him.

[Alex Jacob]

It's a good question you ask, Jason. One that we should all ask more often. But, it is hard for those who are not completely versed in the evolution of ideas to come up with critical positions. The ones who get completely versed have just a few fleeting moments available to them to describe how they see things, or they just go silent...

;-)

"Ok, so what I was attempting to communicate was something along the lines of: it is absolutely certain that I am experiencing the sensation "red" at this moment (I am looking at a rose) That is a certainty that cannot be overturned, what do you think?"

There are local certainties, to be sure. That you are looking at a red rose is locally true, and if your life depended on recognizing a red rose, it would have a great deal of meaning for you. I also assume that the debate would appear irrelevant. The rose is red.

But it seems intuitively obvious that you could over-turn or bring into doubt the redness of the rose.

I know that these sorts of basic examples have meaning for some---perhaps many---but I don't spend too much time with them. My interests are more immediate (local if you will) and practical.

'Experience is happening', what does that mean (in this context)?

I hope that I have answered in some way that is useful to you.

[brokenhead]

Keep in mind that my original post was a reaction of astonishment and disbelief that someone could one day be 'Nietzsche on steroids' and a frequent reader of Solway, and then one day convert to one of the crudest religious sentiments that humanity has ever known.

Yes, I am keeping this in mind. You are not making it clear, however, which part of aaron's post is a "crude religious sentiment." For me, it is the notion that one has to believe in Christ or suffer eternal damnation, be somehow "lost" or endure everlasting suffering. By failing to make any distinction, you are implying that any faith in Christ, that all forms of Christinaity, qualify as being a crude religious sentiment. This is false. It most likely isn't even what you meant to imply. But imagine that you were in a public place, like a bar, watching a TV news report about a gang of black youths mugging and killing a middle-aged white man for the fun of it, as recently happened here in Philadelphia. Now imagine a white patron of the bar say, "Fucking niggers are animals - ya can never take the jungle outta the bastards." Would you be okay in hearing that? Probably not. And I'm assuming you are white. How much more offensive would it sound to a black patron who heard the remark? As a Christian who has not come by it easily, I am telling you your post is offensive to me. You probably cannot see that. That is why I am telling you.

Yet even a rudimentary and intellectually vacuous view of Christianity - IMHO - doesn't seem to qualify as one of the crudest religious sentiments the world has ever known. Unless you include in that group rudimentary and intellectually vacuous views of Islam, Judaism, and countless primitive religions which made it mandatory, or at least acceptable, to wipe out a neighboring tribe because that tribe worshipped a different rock or stream.

I am not proud of or defending what aaron has to blab about, in the same way that most Muslims do not sanction flying jetliners into skyscrapers. I throw shit at the TV when Jimmy Swaggart is on. I think Tammy Faye was a whore. I resent priests telling me what to believe and insinuating themselves between my and God. But it is equally offensive when I hear someone blithely dismissing Christ or his message. It's like someone else insulting my mother. And I hate the old battleaxe.

[brokenhead]

The thread opener was about as blindingly obviously contrived as a bear and a pope discussing the merits of christianity whilst taking a shit in the woods together.

It reminds me of the one about the bear and the rabbit in the woods, taking a shit next to each other. The bear says to the rabbit, "Hey, tell me something. Does the shit stick to your fur?" The rabbit looks at the bear and replies, "Uh, no..." So the bear wipes his ass with the rabbit.

[Cory Duchesne]

Keep in mind that my original post was a reaction of astonishment and disbelief that someone could one day be 'Nietzsche on steroids' and a frequent reader of Solway, and then one day convert to one of the crudest religious sentiments that humanity has ever known.

Yes, I am keeping this in mind. You are not making it clear, however, which part of aaron's post is a "crude religious sentiment."

The part about repenting for his godlessness and putting his trust in Jesus.

Godlessness is a virtue. Put your trust in truth, not some character you never met named Jesus.

For me, it is the notion that one has to believe in Christ or suffer eternal damnation, be somehow "lost" or endure everlasting suffering.

Ok, I'll admit that one is definitely bottom of the barrel.

By failing to make any distinction, you are implying that any faith in Christ, that all forms of Christinaity, qualify as being a crude religious sentiment.

To trust that a supernatural entity beyond this world makes everything ok is a crude religious sentiment.

It most likely isn't even what you meant to imply. But imagine that you were in a public place, like a bar, watching a TV news report about a gang of black youths mugging and killing a middle-aged white man for the fun of it, as recently happened here in Philadelphia. Now imagine a white patron of the bar say, "Fucking niggers are animals - ya can never take the jungle outta the bastards." Would you be okay in hearing that? Probably not. And I'm assuming you are white. How much more offensive would it sound to a black patron who heard the remark?

I wouldn't get offended because it's not wise to make yourself vulnerable to being offended.

Nothing you or anyone can say bothers me. It's a pretty good position to be in.

As a Christian who has not come by it easily, I am telling you your post is offensive to me. You probably cannot see that. That is why I am telling you.

Have you ever read the introduction to the forum?

To be offended means that you have an ego and hence hold false values.

I've made it the meaning of my life to help eliminate false values and egotism.

So by telling me that I've offended you, you're basically letting me know that I'm doing my job well.

Yet even a rudimentary and intellectually vacuous view of Christianity - IMHO - doesn't seem to qualify as one of the crudest religious sentiments the world has ever known. Unless you include in that group rudimentary and intellectually vacuous views of Islam, Judaism, and countless primitive religions which made it mandatory, or at least acceptable, to wipe out a neighboring tribe because that tribe worshipped a different rock or stream.

hahaha, I think we're both exaggerating now.

[Alex Jacob]

"The Tukano people of the Vaupés region of Colombia say that the first people came from the sky in a serpent canoe, and Father Sun had promised them a magical drink that would connect them with the radiant powers of the heavens. While the men were in the "House of the Waters," attempting to make this drink, the first woman went into the forest to give birth. She came back with a boy radiating golden light, whose body she rubbed with leaves.

"This luminous boy-child was the vine, and each of the men cut off a piece of this living being that became his piece of the vine lineage. In a variation of this myth from the Desana (from the same region), the serpent canoe came from the Milky Way, bringing a man, a woman, and three plants for the people - cassava, coca and caapi. They also regarded it as a gift from the Sun, a kind of container for the yellow-gold light of the Sun, that provided for the first people the rules on how to live and how to speak."
_________________________________________________

"Once upon a time, a long, long time ago there lived among the Tukanoans a woman, the first woman of 'creation' who drowned men in visions. To the Tukanoans intercourse is a visionary experience in which men are 'drowned in visions'.

"The first woman became pregnant by the sun-god who had impregnated her through the eye. The child was born in a flash of light. The woman, whose name was Yaye, cut the umbilical cord and rubbed its body with magical herbs thus shaping its body. The child became known as Caapi, a narcotic plant, who lived to become an old man. He jealously guards his hallucinatory powers, his Caapi, which is the source from which the Tukanoan men received their semen.

"The myth essentially tells the story of the alchemical marriage, in which wo/man seeks union with the god-source, divine power of creation. Thus the religious experience is also always a sexual one. To quote Schultes and Hofmann: For the Indian, "the hallucinatory experience is essentially a sexual one... to make it sublime, to pass from the erotic, the sensual, to a mystical union with the mythic era, the intrauterine stage, is the ultimate goal, attained by a mere handful but coveted by all."

[brokenhead]

The part about repenting for his godlessness and putting his trust in Jesus.

Godlessness is a virtue. Put your trust in truth, not some character you never met named Jesus.

Well, that statement is smug and ignorant, but since you do not care if you appear ignorant, I won't care either. Yet it is not a wholly untrue sentiment, for a sentiment is what it is. If the only alternative to behaving badly in the name of God is to be Godless, then I agree with you. It should be clear by now that I strongly disagree it is the only alternative. In fact, it is rather a cowardly one. I believe it is tantamount to your doing yourself a disservice, but since you do not care about that, I won't, either.

brokenhead: For me, it is the notion that one has to believe in Christ or suffer eternal damnation, be somehow "lost" or endure everlasting suffering.
Cory: Ok, I'll admit that one is definitely bottom of the barrel.

At least we agree on something.

To trust that a supernatural entity beyond this world makes everything ok is a crude religious sentiment.

Yes. And this observation is childish. No person with an ounce of sense believes that "everything" can be made ok, as if by a magic wave of the hand. People that insist on this objection appear as if they are fixated on some notion that should have been dealt with by now. But since you don't care how you appear, I won't either.

Nothing you or anyone can say bothers me. It's a pretty good position to be in.

I'm not trying to bother you, but I am trying to make a point. And yes, that is an enviable position to be in, if in fact you are. I have never met or heard of anyone that could literally not be bothered by "anything" that "anyone" could say to them. Perhaps someone in a coma or vegetative state, or maybe severely retarded.

To be offended means that you have an ego and hence hold false values.

I've made it the meaning of my life to help eliminate false values and egotism.

So by telling me that I've offended you, you're basically letting me know that I'm doing my job well.

I am not sure I phrased it correctly, then. I said that a statement of yours was offensive to me. I should have said "I find it to be an offensive statement." I am not offended in the way you seem to think I am. Yet I am not claiming by this that I have no ego. I am claiming I do not hold false values, however, as your little tautology is deeply flawed, to say the least.

You will note that I didn't say that you were offensive. I know it wouldn't have mattered to you if I did. It matters to me, though. Sometimes you just can't help caring.

[David Quinn]

David wrote:

"When they defend the validity of the scientific method, and the proper practice of it, against the various claims made by charlatans, such as Christian fundamentalists, does that make them theologians?"

I think a great deal goes over your head, David. And it is just because your 'head' has not been sufficiently prepared.

I admit that I'm not up to speed with the latest knitting trends, or the latest techniques for growing roses, but what can you do? You have to prioritize your time and energy in some way.

I don't think you are really able, and of course you are not interested, in taking into consideration the multivalent way that ideas---Christian ideas in this case---operate within our cultural matrix. As far as I am concerned you and all others are right to take issue with Christian fundamentalists, the socially psychotic. (I explained in some detail that all can be and should be re-refracted through our modern conceptions).

But these ideas have also come manifest themselves in very different ways, and the best of the best of it can be quite sublime. In any case, it is not something that can just be dismissed with a wave of an imperious hand. I think one needs to take the time to understand, not just to sweep aside.

Certainly, there are some sublime aspects of religion, but they tend to be generated despite the religion, rather than because of it. In essence, they occur when an individual member of the religion authentically reaches out towards Truth, but in a timid way so as not to break away from the religion proper.

It often used to trouble me whenever I observed an intelligent person with a genuine feel for Truth involving himself in religion, particularly the Christian religion. I'm thinking here of people like Kierkegaard, Eckhart, and Thomas Merton. After all, it only takes but a glance to see that religion is a complete joke on so many levels. You have the priests who dress and behave like clowns, always talking in sing-song voices and giving themselves preposterous titles in the process; you have the ludicrous rules and rituals that resemble something that children might make up in a playground; you have the prayers and music which are so cheesy and unsophisticated that they can only have been designed for emotionally-disturbed simpletons - I mean, what intelligent, self-respecting individual with a conscious connection to Truth would want to have anything to do with that?

But I've come to realize that it is precisely these cartoonish aspects of religion which attracts them. The reality is that some people, although extremely advanced by normal standards, still have difficulty engaging in a direct relationship with Truth. It is too full-on, too demanding, for them. But if they can dilute it down a bit, filter it through the cartoonish hue of religion, then they can begin to cope with it.

So the sublime aspects of religion, when they exist, are really the result of these weaker individuals trying to integrate the Truth within a cartoon format. It is during these moments that religion can indeed divest itself of much of its buffoonary and begin to resemble a serious human endeavour, at least for a short time.

In my opinion, the major religions of this world utterly depend on these quasi-authentic moments brought about by these weaker Truth-conscious individuals, and always have done. If it wasn’t for them, these religions would be completely hollow and would be seen to be as such, even by the populace at large. Their cartoonish nature would be far too visible to ignore, and they would more than likely wither away to minor cult status.

It is this combination of little dollops of authenticity within a sea of cartoon imagery that proves so irresistible to people. Too much authenticity and people will quickly shy away in horror. Too little authenticity and people will laugh at the religion in contempt. You need just the right balance to make it work.

You would have to have had some background education to appreciate it, and I think in your case you would need to see beyond some of the 'aesthetic' prejudices you have established as part of your perceptive lens: the 'higher expressions' of the best of the best of Christianity are often expressed in works of art, in poetry, and in a kind of application of theology which is not the same as the mind-set of 'scientific method'. Living of life is an art of that sort, in my opinion. It is not dry scientism. That I have to explain this to you, a grown man, is appalling.

You want to stay within the cartoon realm. That's okay. Not everyone can live outside it. But don't think for a moment that it is the highest kind of life.

In my opinion, a person's life is only authentic to the degree that he can live without the cartoons.

You cannot compare yourself with a 'scientist', you fool. It is really the most stupid argument I have seen from you. You can try to peg your theology to a neo-scientific methodology---and you would not be the first---yet the whole domain with which you involve yourself is just not comparable.

I see that you didn't grasp my analogy. It had nothing to do with me trying to pass myself off as a scientist.

I promote and defend the validity of the philosophic method. The philosophic method - i.e. the full and fearless use of reason to dispel all delusion - is every bit as rational and open-minded as the scientific method. If you want to equate my promoting of this method as “theology”, then it means having to equate science with theology as well. Or to put it another way, it means that you are butchering the word “theology” beyond all recognition in your attempt to put me in a box.

The 'better minds' (in my opinion of course) are able to make a bridge between what might be called two distinct minds, and their intellectual output is rich, valuable, interesting and thought-provoking. Perhaps the most notable, in our modern context, is Aldous Huxley. I have the impression that he is able to straddle two different mind-sets or disciplines: the scientific-rational and the intuitive-spiritual-aesthetic. In comparison to this sort of attainment, which is very significant and very sublime, you seem quite a few steps 'behind'.

Huxley’s okay, but very minor league, really. He’s good for amusing and educating cartoon-lovers, so he does have some value. I enjoyed some of his works when I was young.


-

[brokenhead]

Hey David, this was an insightful post, I found. I'm not up to copying and pasting to point out the parts I like best. I'm suspecting your views on religion are not as different from my own as I had previously thought. Certainly, I can appreciate the "clown" imagery.

[average]

Science has no methodology. The methods used by biologists studying cells are different than the methods used by zoologists studying packs of wolves. And the methods of physics change from year to year etc...

Experimentation and verification is theory dependent. For example the meaning of mass changes from one theory to another, from something concrete to something relative, to something even more mysterious. Verifying a theory through experimentation is essentially circular since the meaning of the terms you are verifying are dependent on the theory you subscribe to. Thats why scientists can interpret experiments in different ways depending on which theory they have in mind.

Then the theories depend on the paradigm scientists are working under until a shift occurs...

Science like philosophy, has no particular methodology.

[maestro]

And Brokenhead, Gurdjieff was a subscriber to Gnostic Christianity which is indeed a fascinating religion and about 180 degrees of other forms of christianity. The following article is an interesting description of this religion.

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/gnosticism/

In my view given the state of the world Gnosticism makes much much more sense than any other religion (except Buddhism).

[Alex Jacob]

[Post erased]

[Carl G]

How do you have any time for shamanism with all this damned writing?

[Alex Jacob]

Carl, you're a grump.

[brokenhead]

Carl, you're a grump.

Yeah, but a funny one.

[Jason]

How do you have any time for shamanism with all this damned writing?

Maybe if you had unlimited access to 20 year old Latinas you'd have that much energy too.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You would have to have had some background education to appreciate it, and I think in your case you would need to see beyond some of the 'aesthetic' prejudices you have established as part of your perceptive lens: the 'higher expressions' of the best of the best of Christianity are often expressed in works of art, in poetry, and in a kind of application of theology which is not the same as the mind-set of 'scientific method'.

Alex, I do have doubts about your background education in these matters actually. It seems mostly hand waving and bluff to someone like me, someone growing up inside several mainstream Christian movements, immersed and participating in all social, communal, fundamentalist and theological aspects. But all your referring to such backgrounds put you on a higher platform. It's meaningless in discussions like this, isn't it? It's similar to claim a superior argument because of enlightenment or Gods' voice, a holy book and so on.

The way you describe Christianity, is that a useful way really? One could take any long-standing tradition, examine it and see the connections to various cultural, psychological and perhaps even physiological aspects of a people. But by smearing it out like that, it becomes less of a target. All one ends up doing is pointing out the multitude of causes and effects - the whole complexity - around Christianity and then question why anyone would say anything about it because it would deform this "complete picture" by selecting one aspect and ignore another.

Truth is, this is impossible to avoid when getting specific. So only by understanding the context of the criticism, one could start appreciating its function.

[Jason]

Ok, so what I was attempting to communicate was something along the lines of: it is absolutely certain that I am experiencing the sensation "red" at this moment (I am looking at a rose) That is a certainty that cannot be overturned, what do you think?

There are local certainties, to be sure. That you are looking at a red rose is locally true, and if your life depended on recognizing a red rose, it would have a great deal of meaning for you. I also assume that the debate would appear irrelevant. The rose is red.

But it seems intuitively obvious that you could over-turn or bring into doubt the redness of the rose.

How exactly could you doubt that you are experiencing "red" when you look at a rose? I don't understand how you could think that that's possible. Can you explain it further?

I know that these sorts of basic examples have meaning for some---perhaps many---but I don't spend too much time with them. My interests are more immediate (local if you will) and practical.

What could be more immediate than "red"? My philosophical goal is to find absolutely certain truth, to that end this "basic example" is eminently practical.

'Experience is happening', what does that mean (in this context)?

"Red" is an experience, and it is happening when I observe a rose. Just like "blue" or "love" or "anger" are experiences that can happen, and are certain in the same way that "red" is. So "experience is happening" represents a principle and understanding that is applicable to many many things, not just the "basic example" of red.

I hope that I have answered in some way that is useful to you.

Ya did ok kid ;)