For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
[From The Patheos Blog – Notes Toward a New Chimera – “Mental Illness and the Belief in a Soul with Free Will” – by Steve Neumann.]
Steve Neumann – “Fortunately, the combination of talk therapy and mindfulness meditation eventually brought me out of my depression several months later.”
This seems to have worked, right? But, where in this statement, is there NOT the intention to get better. i.e. Will.
As with the [previous] Biblical literalism and general fundamentalist belief system that you described, your conceptualization of “Will” was inadequate.
Much like the half baked summation of reality, as espoused by The Center for Naturalism.
Replacing the Bible with Science has changed nothing, if you don’t get, that the Singularity of Nature, IS God.
Infinitude, the FIRST CAUSE. and Awareness, the FIRST EFFECT. i.e. Self. The same self that animates you and me.
“I and the Father are One.” as are you.
kraut2 quoting from the above and commenting – “//that the Singularity of Nature, IS God.// Another one for Chopra. Meaningless drivel^2”
If your mind can’t go there, or doesn’t find it useful, why not just say that?
The “Meaningless drivel” part is something extra.
A well rehearsed secondary layer of limitation to reinforce the first.
[From the Patheos blog – Notes From An Apostate – “Why This Atheist is Patient with the Religious – Part 2” – by Sincere Kriabo.]
Religion informed by science is better religion. Science informed by better religion would be something different as well.
Raising the bar, we set the stage for a self improving holistic system, yielding Truth as well as facts.
Or so it seems to me.
[Responding to basenjibrian who was responding to a comment by Geof, God of Biscuits.]
Religion can be thought of as a formalized structure contrived towards organizing, as well as elevating, certain innate impulses.
Much like the rules of baseball.
Geoff, God of Biscuits does seem a bit unhinged by antipathy.
Eager to burn the barn down because the roof leaks.
Thank you for staying clear and to the point.
Bill Streifer – “‘Pure’ Atheists don’t believe that God exists. Period. “
But, this IS a belief, an absolute assertion, equivalent to any utterance by a hard core Bible thumper.
I’m assuming that you (as a pure atheist) specifically believe that God does not exist, rather than, just don’t think in terms of God.
You have had to suspend the full process of reasoning to hold this view. And your strident activism means you will likely use force of will, rather than reason, to “win” arguments.
Bill Streifer – “You had me until ‘You have had to suspend the full process of reasoning to hold this view.'”
Key phrase: “…full process of reasoning…”
Bill Streifer – “My view, in fact, is the culmination of all sorts of processes: logical, evidentiary, and the disbelief in the contrary view (which is absurd to the extreme and void of any physical evidence what-so-ever).”
“culmination” i.e. The enquiry is finished? The result is known?
What is this absurd “contrary view” that is presupposed to such an extent that it is not worth considering?
Is there a single view that is absurd, or a multitude. Have all possibilities been investigated?
Actually, what is this “God” that you don’t believe exists? (Who’s idea of it are you not believing in?)
As for “physical evidence”, I would think there would be no shortage of that. If the process of reasoning had actually run to completion.
Logically, one has to consider just what “Existence” itself might be? What that missing law of physics might be?
Bill Streifer – ” //’culmination’ i.e. The enquiry is finished? The result is known?//
Yes, the enquiry is finished in my mind, and the conclusion is known to me. So until someone, anyone shows me any physical evidence whatsoever, even the tiniest bit (and quoting the Bible isn’t evidence), my position will not change. I’ve waited over 50 years to date, and no one has brought me any physical evidence that God exists. … Do you have any? I’m waiting.”
The rest of my comment was intended to lead you beyond this predictable posturing around the “show me the slightest evidence of God” cliche.
But I’ll go ahead and throw something out:
Evidence of God….Your opposable thumbs.
Evidence of God….You quoting me Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Evidence of God…Darwins Theory of Evolution and Darwin’s opposable thumbs.
Evidence of God…The Realization that a Theory is not the thing itself.
(may be getting ahead things on that last one.)
There is always a more integrated and holistic understanding waiting. Human beings and the evolution leading to us and beyond us, represents a continuum of enquiry that is not FINISHED.
It is about Self Discovery. The Self being discovered is the inherent Nature behind and throughout the Universe.
You will most likely at this point tell me that this is unproven bullshit. And that evolution is random (because the Theory says so), and that there is no meaning to any of it beyond the mechanics of survival.
I’m hoping that you come up with something different than that.
Veronica Hamel responding to Sincere – “Clearly you do not know how to determine what is true, and what is not true. There is only one method to do this. It is called the Scientific Method.”
Sort of like, “If it ain’t in the Bible, it ain’t true”?
Veronica Hamel – “So does this mean that you know of another method to determine what is true? If you do, there are thousands of scientist that would love to know what it is. Also, If you can demonstrate such a new method i know you would win a Nobel Prize. Please tell us what the method is, or is that a secret that only you know?”
Just providing some perspective.
Scientists and Bible-ists alike are fleeting ephemera, but that which is True, is simply so.
Veronica Hamel – “Well, you have revealed yourself with that last comment. Things that are true may be true inherently and true weather or not anyone realizes it, but the truth of it still needs to be discovered by mankind,and that is where the Scientific Method comes into play.”
Not sure what it may be that I’ve revealed” (perhaps you just said that for dramatic effect).
Since you have basically recognized the reasonableness of my statement, I’m content.
Though I’m pretty sure that artists and Zen masters would quibble with the “proprietary” attitude per your method of choice.
[This is a response to the comments of john l. to the blog posted by Sincere Kirabo. The conversation with john l. will be treated separately in The Winding Path – 152. Here it has prompted a separate exchange with Veronica Hamel.]
brmckay responding to john l. – “It seems to me that what you are describing is a degraded form of something else.
Do you have the same scorn for say Hopi or Navajo religious tradition being passed on from one generation to the next?”
Veronica Hamel – “So you deem tradition to be a ‘good thing’? Or doesn’t it matter to you if fallacies, erroneous and detrimental beliefs are passed along to your children? You are just wrong on this one.”
I used the term “degraded” to indicate my take on the situation.
And, would never universally declare “tradition” either good or bad. Are you sure that is what you are suggesting?
From other things that you have written, I think that you may actually be declaring the underlying myths that shape a culture to be, by default, “fallacies, erroneous and detrimental”.
I can’t encourage you there and am not “wrong on this one”.
If, through education and example, we improve people’s (including the children’s) comprehension of both the nature and value of myth. as well as an appreciation of reason and logic, the danger of corrupting fundamentalism is averted.
The above remedy gets subverted however, by a fanatic application of yet another fundamentalist orthodoxy.