< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Question for Atheists (+BM)

 
Nick_A
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick_A
Total Posts:  1484
Joined  30-03-2012
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:29
 

One can begin to open their thought in a new way intellectually but it is very limited. The reason is that we exist in a triune universe but experience it through dualism. Dualism is fine for usual for scientific relationships but now quantum science is experiencing it as inadequate. This is because it functions normally through the Law of the Excluded Middle. Now some are beginning to see how the Law of the Included middle opens a new direction of thought the dualistic closed dualistic mind must be oblivious of.

For those interested I’ll link Basarab Nicolescu’s explanation. He is a highly celebrated scientist with an open mind. As such he is in a minority making those like him even more essential to humanity as a whole

http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c3.htm

[ Edited: 05 April 2012 16:36 by Nick_A]
 
Nick_A
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick_A
Total Posts:  1484
Joined  30-03-2012
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:35
 
Brick Bungalow - 05 April 2012 02:17 PM

I do my level best to remain open to new information, new experience and better reasoning. Including that which may challenge my current definitions. I’m quite certain that there are an endless supply of mysteries for me to explore. I don’t really regard this as humility (although you are free to do so if you like of course) Its more like a healthy spirit of exploration and adventure. A sense of joy and wonder at the unknown.

And I’ve really tried with religion. I was raised a christian and did everything I could to make it work. Praying, singing, studying, getting deprogrammed by youth pastors, dunked in cold water and so forth. So I must be forthright with you that its rather trying to be asked such questions. The veiled presumption being that a non believer is someone who never gave religion a fair shake. That is overwhelmingly untrue as a generalization. I tried for over twenty years, with everything I had. And its the same with a majority of people I meet at atheist gatherings.

And to be honest with you, opening the floor with something like that really feels like projection. If we consider an aggregate of religious believers world wide what percentage of them have ever seriously reflected on the possible truth of confessions outside their own local favorite? I would accept any credible positive evidence but I think we both know the answer. The more culturally isolated a community is the more dominant and unchallenged is its religious tradition. This could be pure coincidence but it also could be pointing to something intrinsic about the nature of faith. Admitting the possibility of error is an unspoken fundamental of a scientific perspective. While being the anathema of religious authority.

I honestly think the burden rest on whoever makes the claim. Not the one who asks for better reasons.

Brick, can you be open to the idea that religion as it is expressd in society functions in Plato’s cave. That means it is under the same illusions as other institution such as politics that just turns in circles in accordance with nature’s cycles as all life on earth does. The question is if there is a transcendent level of reality that is the source of what has devolved to become societal life as we know it. If there is, how does one consciously graduate from opinions within the cave to knowledge outside the cave?

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:35
 
Nick_A - 05 April 2012 02:17 PM

Sceptic asks what consciousness is and

Not consciousness, supernatural, though it’s a good idea to define how you’re using any key terms, and it’s required if you’re using them in an unconventional sense, as you seem to be doing here with “consciousness”.

 

Nick_A - 05 April 2012 02:17 PM

Why do you think the “need for something more than daily life offers” in required to be open to reason, and what do you mean by this “quality of reason the ancients knew as ‘pondering’”? That sounds like a way to say “if you’re not on the Kool-Aid then you’re not biased in the ‘right’ way to ‘understand’ what I’m on about here” (or in other words, if you don’t agree with me then you don’t get it).

First of all I don’t know if you are open to the concept of consciousness without content as distinguished from its contents. Without being open to this concept, nothing further can be explained. Jacob Needleman gives a good description in his book “A Sense of the Cosmos.”

Sounds like Needleman is just reifying the cosmos, and/or the laws of nature. It’s the leap to a god that’s gonna be the problem here, or so it would appear based upon that excerpt. I’m fine with the (Westernized) Taoist version of this “consciousness without content”, but that’s because there’s no “consciousness” presumed.

And there’s the rub ... as soon as your ideology here requires presumption ... not gonna go there. You’ll find that’s gonna be The Problem in here.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6337
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:35
 

I have to ask: what is a triune universe?

I thought that word was otherwise unengaged.

 
 
Nick_A
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick_A
Total Posts:  1484
Joined  30-03-2012
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:41
 
SkepticX - 05 April 2012 02:35 PM
Nick_A - 05 April 2012 02:17 PM

Sceptic asks what consciousness is and

Not consciousness, supernatural, though it’s a good idea to define how you’re using any key terms, and it’s required if you’re using them in an unconventional sense, as you seem to be doing here with “consciousness”.

 

Nick_A - 05 April 2012 02:17 PM

Why do you think the “need for something more than daily life offers” in required to be open to reason, and what do you mean by this “quality of reason the ancients knew as ‘pondering’”? That sounds like a way to say “if you’re not on the Kool-Aid then you’re not biased in the ‘right’ way to ‘understand’ what I’m on about here” (or in other words, if you don’t agree with me then you don’t get it).

First of all I don’t know if you are open to the concept of consciousness without content as distinguished from its contents. Without being open to this concept, nothing further can be explained. Jacob Needleman gives a good description in his book “A Sense of the Cosmos.”

Sounds like Needleman is just reifying the cosmos, and/or the laws of nature. It’s the leap to a god that’s gonna be the problem here, or so it would appear based upon that excerpt. I’m fine with the (Westernized) Taoist version of this “consciousness without content”, but that’s because there’s no “consciousness” presumed.

And there’s the rub ... as soon as your ideology here requires presumption ... not gonna go there. You’ll find that’s gonna be The Problem in here.

This thread is not about beliefs but if a person can become able to reason in a way that is not an expression of classic dualism.. I think it is more difficult for the atheist since their egos are caught up in denial. Denial and humility are mutually exclusive.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:44
 
Nick_A - 05 April 2012 02:29 PM

One can begin to open their thought in a new way intellectually but it is very limited. The reason is that we exist in a triune universe but experience it through dualism. Dualism is fine for usual for scientific relationships but now quantum science is experiencing it as inadequate. This is because it functions normally through the Law of the Excluded Middle. Now some are beginning to see how the Law of the Included middle opens a new direction of thought the dualistic closed dualistic mind must be oblivious of.

For those interested I’ll link Basarab Nicolescu’s explanation. He is a highly celebrated scientist with an open mind. As such he is in a minority making those like him even more essential to humanity as a whole

Your problem, Nick, is that you have an agenda.  Also, you don’t really understand metaphysics and try to mix in a variety of quantum-wooness, vague references to excluded middle, and so on.  You also make assumptions that you have not supported other than through assertion.  For example, that we live in a triune universe but experience it through dualism.  You make this assertion with no explanation or support.  What do your mean?  Another point, I don’t know if Nicolescu is religions (I wrote a review on one of his more philosophically inclined books about 15 years ago) but I do know that he was into Georg Gurdjieff and the 4th Way which really isn’t a religious orientation - more a path of knowledge than of faith.  So come clean, are you doing rigorous metaphysics or are you shilling for some sort of faith based belief? 

“It is because of wonder that men turn to philosophy.”  Aristotle

So, people who feel that is more than just everyday life may turn to religion (the Church has tried to claim exclusive rights to that territory, but finally has failed), but they may also turn to real philosophy.

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5096
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:49
 

Presuming upon the foibles of strangers is not an endorsement of ones own humility. You hoist your own petard sir.

 
Nick_A
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick_A
Total Posts:  1484
Joined  30-03-2012
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:53
 
Nhoj Morley - 05 April 2012 02:35 PM

I have to ask: what is a triune universe?

I thought that word was otherwise unengaged.

The universe is structured on the interaction of three forces. This is what makes the Christian concept of God simultaneously as ONE and THREE impossible for dualism.

ONE is outside of time and space: the conscdious source containing every-thing in potential. Its division into three is the beginning of creation so ONE and THREE exist simultanously.

Every thing or fraction of a whole exists as a lawful result of the interaction of three forces referred to in many ways such as yin. yang, and Qi or affirming, denying and reconciling, These fractions of a higher whole are connected within a cosmos. Cosmoses and their relative expressions of consciousness are lawfully connected and taken as a whole, they comprise the triune universe

 
Nick_A
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick_A
Total Posts:  1484
Joined  30-03-2012
 
 
 
05 April 2012 16:56
 
Brick Bungalow - 05 April 2012 02:49 PM

Presuming upon the foibles of strangers is not an endorsement of ones own humility. You hoist your own petard sir.

I take the same view as Einstein. I’m openly wiling to admit my nothingness in relation to higher consciousness and intelligence. He wrote:

.Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
05 April 2012 17:22
 
Nick_A - 05 April 2012 02:56 PM

I’m openly wiling to admit my nothingness in relation to higher consciousness and intelligence.

But your writing! Are you openly willing to admit the nothingness of your writing in relation to your thinking? Unless you can bend some spoons. In any event, your writing is full of nothing. All of which is as if to ask, why don’t you keep your admissions of your nothingness to yourself?

[ Edited: 05 April 2012 17:24 by Traces Elk]
 
 
Nick_A
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick_A
Total Posts:  1484
Joined  30-03-2012
 
 
 
05 April 2012 17:24
 
burt - 05 April 2012 02:44 PM
Nick_A - 05 April 2012 02:29 PM

One can begin to open their thought in a new way intellectually but it is very limited. The reason is that we exist in a triune universe but experience it through dualism. Dualism is fine for usual for scientific relationships but now quantum science is experiencing it as inadequate. This is because it functions normally through the Law of the Excluded Middle. Now some are beginning to see how the Law of the Included middle opens a new direction of thought the dualistic closed dualistic mind must be oblivious of.

For those interested I’ll link Basarab Nicolescu’s explanation. He is a highly celebrated scientist with an open mind. As such he is in a minority making those like him even more essential to humanity as a whole

Your problem, Nick, is that you have an agenda.  Also, you don’t really understand metaphysics and try to mix in a variety of quantum-wooness, vague references to excluded middle, and so on.  You also make assumptions that you have not supported other than through assertion.  For example, that we live in a triune universe but experience it through dualism.  You make this assertion with no explanation or support.  What do your mean?  Another point, I don’t know if Nicolescu is religions (I wrote a review on one of his more philosophically inclined books about 15 years ago) but I do know that he was into Georg Gurdjieff and the 4th Way which really isn’t a religious orientation - more a path of knowledge than of faith.  So come clean, are you doing rigorous metaphysics or are you shilling for some sort of faith based belief? 

“It is because of wonder that men turn to philosophy.”  Aristotle

So, people who feel that is more than just everyday life may turn to religion (the Church has tried to claim exclusive rights to that territory, but finally has failed), but they may also turn to real philosophy.


I refer to Simone Weil a lot becuase she had no agenda and I don’t have one either. She was just willing to be open to experiencing reality. As Thomas Merton said: “Without her non-conformism and mysticism, we reamain not human.” We need these types to help us open our minds. My agenda now is to further the unification of science and and the essence of religion in the cause of truth which I know Simone Weil and many other great human beings understood. Without this unification our species can easily destroy itself because as we make intellectual advancement we move further from opening to experience objective morality.

Of course Dr. Nicolescu was aware of Fourth Way ideas but that is not the issue. The question is if a person can be open to objectively contemplating as with The Law of the Included Middle for example. It is an intellectual means of opening to the experience of the triune universe which Simone did with her entire being. For most it is irrelevant since they are content with dualism. My concern now is for the minority who are willing to intelletually doubt free of emotional denial. The future depends on there being enough of them.

 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
05 April 2012 17:25
 
Nick_A - 05 April 2012 03:24 PM

I refer to Simone Weil a lot

You refer to Simone Weill a lot, but so what. You didn’t bend any spoons, Nick. Waiting…. waiting…. connection timed out.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
05 April 2012 17:26
 

ruh roh rhaggy

Image Attachments
 
crack-pot.jpg
 
 
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19830
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
05 April 2012 17:37
 

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things.

It is this kind of writing that exemplifies that religion is basically just an attempt at authoritarian governance, nothing more nor less.  All posited gods require obedience, as conveniently facilitated by selected humans, usually male, who most often occupy or claim some special status in their society.  No god has ever rewarded or punished, all that is done by people.  Religion also is inherently conservative, in the sense that people are constrained to obey, and not to threaten the social status quo; it is no accident that our social conservatives are also usually theistic believers.  When all of the elaborate and ill-defined religious text is boiled down, “obey me” remains.  Whatever significant changes man has made in his life in terms of longevity, health, nutrition, security and influence over the physical world as been due to challenging authority, not obedience.

 
 
Nick_A
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick_A
Total Posts:  1484
Joined  30-03-2012
 
 
 
05 April 2012 17:50
 
Dennis Campbell - 05 April 2012 03:37 PM

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things.

It is this kind of writing that exemplifies that religion is basically just an attempt at authoritarian governance, nothing more nor less.  All posited gods require obedience, as conveniently facilitated by selected humans, usually male, who most often occupy or claim some special status in their society.  No god has ever rewarded or punished, all that is done by people.  Religion also is inherently conservative, in the sense that people are constrained to obey, and not to threaten the social status quo; it is no accident that our social conservatives are also usually theistic believers.  When all of the elaborate and ill-defined religious text is boiled down, “obey me” remains.  Whatever significant changes man has made in his life in terms of longevity, health, nutrition, security and influence over the physical world as been due to challenging authority, not obedience.

Again you are assuming a personal God. Simone never referred to a personal but rather the expressions of consciousnes and universal laws. For example she is known as the patron saint of outsiders because she appreciated the depth of Christianity but was opposed to its descent into Christendom.

http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/bauer.htm

5.  In Simone Weil’s life, religion played a dominant role in the years following the mystical epiphanies she experienced in 1938.  Long before, however, her wish to partake in the suffering of the distressed led her to a life-style of extreme austerity.  It was under these circumstances that, in 1937, Simone Weil became increasingly attracted to Christianity, a religion she considered to be in its true essence a religion of slaves, and therefore in utter contradiction to the actual form it had taken in history.  On this assumption, Simone Weil objected against Catholicism—the denomination she knew best and respected the most —[21]  that it had ended by perverting itself for the sake of power.  The historical “double stain” on the Church that Simone Weil denounces originates in the fact that Israel imposed on Christian believers the acceptance of the Old Testament and its almighty God, and that Rome chose Christianity as the religion of the Empire.[22]  Despite its universal redemptive mission, the Church became from its very beginnings heir of Jewish nationalism and of the totalitarianism inherent in Imperial Rome.  As the spiritual locus in which both traditions of power displaced the religion of powerless slaves, Christianity became the actual negation of its own foundational leitmotiv:  the self-annulment of divine omnipotence by the godly act of kenosis or self-abasement.

Buddhists believe in dharma which really means existing in conscious cooperation with universal laws. Simone is simply saying that we can function as creatures of reaction normal for organic life on earth serving a mechanical necessity or become a part of conscious life in the universe serving a higher more conscious necessity.

The essence of religion concerns this transition from a mechanical to a conscious necessity. In Christianity is the transition from the old man to the New Man. Why does this seem so absurd you?

 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›