I'm proud to be atheist. To me, it's just another IQ test I've scored well on.
Bob_the_Lunatic
Superman music
1 day ago
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Atheist Pride
Other Supernatural Things
Monday, August 22, 2011
Experiencing Transcendence
An experience that is intensely moving is a natural reward system in the brain to impose certain patterns indelibly in the memory. Lets define these experiences as transcendental in the general non-religious sense. Music seems to be fundamental in this regard in some theories even preceding speech.
Such experiences are so fundamental to human experience that shamans, priests, pastors and poo-bahs do their level best to co-opt them to whatever it is they are selling, usually a god. I find any such co-option fundamentally degrading.
I will take my transcendent experiences straight. I might try to explain them in retrospect, using physics or music theory, or training but such explanations in no way subtract from the transcendence. I can explain a rainbow perfectly with optics and refraction. But being at the focus of all that beauty and color is a transcendent experience even though I know why it happens. But I can guarantee that I never have and never will think of a rainbow as Gods promise that he won't exterminate all life on earth ever again.
Such experiences are so fundamental to human experience that shamans, priests, pastors and poo-bahs do their level best to co-opt them to whatever it is they are selling, usually a god. I find any such co-option fundamentally degrading.
I will take my transcendent experiences straight. I might try to explain them in retrospect, using physics or music theory, or training but such explanations in no way subtract from the transcendence. I can explain a rainbow perfectly with optics and refraction. But being at the focus of all that beauty and color is a transcendent experience even though I know why it happens. But I can guarantee that I never have and never will think of a rainbow as Gods promise that he won't exterminate all life on earth ever again.
Is Politics Relevant to Anything?
Libertarian, Liberal, Trogloright - I have decided that politics at least in developed countries is irrelevant for the people who make the country and the world work. Politics is basically fooling most of the people most of the time which is not hard since most of the people want to be fooled most of the time. The people making things happen pay politicians to fool the people to keep them off their backs. Income inequality is always a problem, but notice that the people who make things happen realize it and will at least fix it politically and probably in actuality.
I always vote. If only to encourage the least awful. And write to and phone politicians doing the right thing for the same reason. I do not expect results.
I always vote. If only to encourage the least awful. And write to and phone politicians doing the right thing for the same reason. I do not expect results.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Why Atheists Study Religion
Since I was a small child many of my good friends have spent significant portions of their life in the worship of and dependence on God. I was naturally curious about what drove this "waste" of time, and tried to discover the value in it. I came to some tentative conclusions, but none of them made sense in my life. It was in no sense a waste of time as I learned much about living from their religious views and my study of religious music. There is much to learn in myth and fiction, but it helps to be aware of the fact that it is myth and fiction.
It is probably true that I know more about most religions that I have studied than believers, as I can think about what they are saying without worrying about blasphemy or annoying God. So I can pick out the useful teachings and reject the useless ones.
It is very useful to read the New Testament without God or anti-God blinders on. There is much that is useful there and it is important to know the source of the dysfunctional values that drive much of the society I live with. I say with instead of in, as my ERSSG has very little commonality with the larger society. But it is valuable to know the drivers of the larger society to know how to deal with it.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Infinite Monkeys, Typewriters, and Shakespeare.
However it is a fact that a finite number of primates breeding with no target in mind, did produce the entire works of Shakespeare. Not with typewriters obviously, but with quill pens.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Afterlife Considerations
So What? - beliefnet
The probability of an afterlife is so low as to be a useless consideration in living. The chances of God mediating an afterlife are even lower. The chances of God's mediation of an afterlife based on religious choice are nil.
The probability of an afterlife is so low as to be a useless consideration in living. The chances of God mediating an afterlife are even lower. The chances of God's mediation of an afterlife based on religious choice are nil.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Jesus as theistic humanist.
Jesus as teacher. - beliefnet
Jesus was using the prevailing paradigm of God to teach, but the focus was on being a better human being to and for other humans. In other words you learn from God how to be a better human.
Radically different from the prevailing learn from the priests how to worship God for the sake of God and the priests. A caricature certainly, but not far from reality. Paul went back to this paradigm. Worship Christ for the sake of God and to save one's soul. No concern for the human at all and certainly not for humanity.
I am not talking about The Lord Jesus of Nazareth I am talking about the human preacher Jesus, who was using God to teach his fellow humans humanity. I suspect he believed in his personal relationship to God and believed that his mission from God was to teach what he taught.
All of which had nothing at all to do with what his followers and usurpers did to create The Lord Jesus of Nazareth which he frequently denied having anything at all to do with.
Certainly the radical theistic humanism of Jesus in the Synoptics before the passion has much to teach Christians and atheists alike. It is true some of the idealism is over the top, but none the less effective as an ideal if not a practical paradigm for living.
In some payoff scenarios turn the other cheek seems to be an extremely effective strategy in game theory known as tit-for two tats. Opponent defects once, cooperate. If opponent defects twice retaliate. Practically: If hesh smites the other cheek, kill herm.
Jesus was using the prevailing paradigm of God to teach, but the focus was on being a better human being to and for other humans. In other words you learn from God how to be a better human.
Radically different from the prevailing learn from the priests how to worship God for the sake of God and the priests. A caricature certainly, but not far from reality. Paul went back to this paradigm. Worship Christ for the sake of God and to save one's soul. No concern for the human at all and certainly not for humanity.
I am not talking about The Lord Jesus of Nazareth I am talking about the human preacher Jesus, who was using God to teach his fellow humans humanity. I suspect he believed in his personal relationship to God and believed that his mission from God was to teach what he taught.
All of which had nothing at all to do with what his followers and usurpers did to create The Lord Jesus of Nazareth which he frequently denied having anything at all to do with.
Certainly the radical theistic humanism of Jesus in the Synoptics before the passion has much to teach Christians and atheists alike. It is true some of the idealism is over the top, but none the less effective as an ideal if not a practical paradigm for living.
In some payoff scenarios turn the other cheek seems to be an extremely effective strategy in game theory known as tit-for two tats. Opponent defects once, cooperate. If opponent defects twice retaliate. Practically: If hesh smites the other cheek, kill herm.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Entire New Testament in 41 words
The existence of gods - beliefnet
Aug 16, 2011 -- 6:43PM, amcolph wrote:
Jesus preached a radical moral philosophy which scared the crap out of everybody so they strung him up, and Paul turned it all into a pagan magic trick. Everybody breathed a sigh of relief and went back to business as usual.
Aug 16, 2011 -- 6:43PM, amcolph wrote:
Jesus preached a radical moral philosophy which scared the crap out of everybody so they strung him up, and Paul turned it all into a pagan magic trick. Everybody breathed a sigh of relief and went back to business as usual.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
University Communities
SSGS - beliefnet
As an atheist I of course think the university communities are a viable alternative to the religious SSGs. The fact that membership in a university is elected and the values are adopted as adult choices (with some infantile exceptions) is a powerful unifying force to replace God.
A university community is much more than the students, and the student's involvement does not end with graduation. Like runs with like, and even before Facebook, social groups were generally formed based on educational achievement, not necessarily a particular university. As an example in the SF Bay Area graduates of the three major universities, one religious, one private and one public tend to gravitate to the same events and form networks around them.
Some professors and other professional university staff may view their position as a job independent of the community with values derived elsewhere, but in my experience these are the exception rather than the rule. The non-professional staff tends to choose the university in part because of the campus values, and comply with them. The campus cops and bus drivers seem to have a different attitude from their off campus compatriots.
Even campus churches seem to have a different set of social values although God may still have an important role.
As an atheist I of course think the university communities are a viable alternative to the religious SSGs. The fact that membership in a university is elected and the values are adopted as adult choices (with some infantile exceptions) is a powerful unifying force to replace God.
A university community is much more than the students, and the student's involvement does not end with graduation. Like runs with like, and even before Facebook, social groups were generally formed based on educational achievement, not necessarily a particular university. As an example in the SF Bay Area graduates of the three major universities, one religious, one private and one public tend to gravitate to the same events and form networks around them.
Some professors and other professional university staff may view their position as a job independent of the community with values derived elsewhere, but in my experience these are the exception rather than the rule. The non-professional staff tends to choose the university in part because of the campus values, and comply with them. The campus cops and bus drivers seem to have a different attitude from their off campus compatriots.
Even campus churches seem to have a different set of social values although God may still have an important role.
Experiencing God
Experiences - beliefnet
In my studies of the religion of my friends and neighbors I never made any secret of the fact that I was an atheist trying to find out more about their religious lives. They had no problems with my mirroring their devotions, as they knew I was doing so reverently.
In fact the closest I have ever come to experiencing God was in a community RCC with a good friend. We were nearly late for the service. Most were at their devotions in the pews. I mirrored my friend's genuflection knowing it was an acknowledgement of the presence of God. I could feel a presence like someone in the church with me that was not my friend. I did not have the background to associate any attributes to it, but whatever it was remained through the mass.
My post experience analysis was that the community had created a community consciousness that they identified as God. I could only feel the hem of the gown if you will as God attended to Herm duties with the parishioners as I was not a real part of the community to share in the consciousness.
I could discuss it with my friend and did so. My friend said "Of course you were touched by God. We all were." My friend wouldn't even consider the possibility that the community created God, and I didn't press the issue. God visited the community from wherever Hesh was when the devotions started. That was faith, and I know better than to argue with faith.
In my studies of the religion of my friends and neighbors I never made any secret of the fact that I was an atheist trying to find out more about their religious lives. They had no problems with my mirroring their devotions, as they knew I was doing so reverently.
In fact the closest I have ever come to experiencing God was in a community RCC with a good friend. We were nearly late for the service. Most were at their devotions in the pews. I mirrored my friend's genuflection knowing it was an acknowledgement of the presence of God. I could feel a presence like someone in the church with me that was not my friend. I did not have the background to associate any attributes to it, but whatever it was remained through the mass.
My post experience analysis was that the community had created a community consciousness that they identified as God. I could only feel the hem of the gown if you will as God attended to Herm duties with the parishioners as I was not a real part of the community to share in the consciousness.
I could discuss it with my friend and did so. My friend said "Of course you were touched by God. We all were." My friend wouldn't even consider the possibility that the community created God, and I didn't press the issue. God visited the community from wherever Hesh was when the devotions started. That was faith, and I know better than to argue with faith.
Experiencing God
No Gods - beliefnet
The difference is quite simple when I experience anything of the Earth even something spiritual in the atheist sense of being true, or beautiful before rationalization, the fact remains that it can be rationalized and explained to others. The others may not get the same sense of spiritual wonder, but they might at least from my description understand where my spiritual experience is coming from. If I explain that I seem to be at the focal point of a brightly colored arc in the sky most people will say "Oh you mean a rainbow" It may have been a mistbow or a moonbow, but I won't quibble. They know and perhaps appreciate from having a similar experience to the one I described what I am talking about.
Similarly with almost any earthbound experience. Many more years ago than I want to admit I was 16 and in the middle of my active God search. I came out of a dark side street late evening and was stunned by the sight of the flood lighted Florence Cathedral across the plaza. Stunned in the sense I could not move or even think. All I could do was gawk at the sight. Later I could explain to my sister what I had seen, and she noted how she also was stunned even though she was expecting it and indeed looking for it.
In any experience on the Earth I can communicate what I experienced in a way that someone else could uniquely identify the experience if not the wonder I experienced. It would seem that someone experiencing God should be able to describe the experience in such a way that at least a sympathetic listener could say "Oh, that was God." It may be too much to ask for a skeptical atheist to recognize it, but at least a believer in some sort of God should recognize the description.
That was an experience when I was literally knocking on God's door, and should have experienced God if God existed. That and similar experiences where I was actually presupposing God not No-God, and got no result.
The difference is quite simple when I experience anything of the Earth even something spiritual in the atheist sense of being true, or beautiful before rationalization, the fact remains that it can be rationalized and explained to others. The others may not get the same sense of spiritual wonder, but they might at least from my description understand where my spiritual experience is coming from. If I explain that I seem to be at the focal point of a brightly colored arc in the sky most people will say "Oh you mean a rainbow" It may have been a mistbow or a moonbow, but I won't quibble. They know and perhaps appreciate from having a similar experience to the one I described what I am talking about.
Similarly with almost any earthbound experience. Many more years ago than I want to admit I was 16 and in the middle of my active God search. I came out of a dark side street late evening and was stunned by the sight of the flood lighted Florence Cathedral across the plaza. Stunned in the sense I could not move or even think. All I could do was gawk at the sight. Later I could explain to my sister what I had seen, and she noted how she also was stunned even though she was expecting it and indeed looking for it.
In any experience on the Earth I can communicate what I experienced in a way that someone else could uniquely identify the experience if not the wonder I experienced. It would seem that someone experiencing God should be able to describe the experience in such a way that at least a sympathetic listener could say "Oh, that was God." It may be too much to ask for a skeptical atheist to recognize it, but at least a believer in some sort of God should recognize the description.
That was an experience when I was literally knocking on God's door, and should have experienced God if God existed. That and similar experiences where I was actually presupposing God not No-God, and got no result.
Psalm 14:1
Atheist Inspiration - beliefnet
You have repeatedly throughout this thread stated there is no god. If you believe David speaks the truth where does this leave you?
As for the Psalm, a fool disguises herm ambiguities about God or gods and hides them inside. A wiser person knows exactly how they relate to God, gods, or some numinous all highest being and speaks it clearly, unambiguously, and right out loud. I will tell you clearly and unambiguously that there is no God, gods, or numinous all highest being that has anything at all to offer me. Therefore, whether there is a God, gods, or a numinous all highest being is of no importance.
Perhaps you could as unambiguously state your relationship with God, gods, or a numinous all highest being. At this point it is hard to avoid associating the Psalm with you.
You have repeatedly throughout this thread stated there is no god. If you believe David speaks the truth where does this leave you?
As for the Psalm, a fool disguises herm ambiguities about God or gods and hides them inside. A wiser person knows exactly how they relate to God, gods, or some numinous all highest being and speaks it clearly, unambiguously, and right out loud. I will tell you clearly and unambiguously that there is no God, gods, or numinous all highest being that has anything at all to offer me. Therefore, whether there is a God, gods, or a numinous all highest being is of no importance.
Perhaps you could as unambiguously state your relationship with God, gods, or a numinous all highest being. At this point it is hard to avoid associating the Psalm with you.
My Creator
Define God -beliefnet
I have no problem understanding my creators. Countless generations of organisms survived to reproduce culminating in a group of intelligent creative survivor humans that were my ancestors and finally my parents. Both of whom I know and who helped me understand the society of which I am a part. End of creation story.
I have no problem understanding my creators. Countless generations of organisms survived to reproduce culminating in a group of intelligent creative survivor humans that were my ancestors and finally my parents. Both of whom I know and who helped me understand the society of which I am a part. End of creation story.
Ancient Religions in a Modern Society.
Knock on God's Door - beliefnet.
I don't see how a patriarchal, high maternal and infant mortality rate society can have any stories, myths or Gods that are relevant to a modern technological society where one conception equals one economically productive and reproductive adult of either gender.
Added to that is the problem for faith based religions that information is essentially a free good in today's society. Even the most repressed, burkaed, housebound female can access the internet to see how the rest of the world lives. It won't change many lives but it will change enough to create social networks that will change their world. Maybe even ours.
I don't see how a patriarchal, high maternal and infant mortality rate society can have any stories, myths or Gods that are relevant to a modern technological society where one conception equals one economically productive and reproductive adult of either gender.
Added to that is the problem for faith based religions that information is essentially a free good in today's society. Even the most repressed, burkaed, housebound female can access the internet to see how the rest of the world lives. It won't change many lives but it will change enough to create social networks that will change their world. Maybe even ours.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Atheist Spirituality
No Gods not a Presupposition - beliefnet
The difference is quite simple when I experience anything of the Earth even something spiritual in the atheist sense of being true, or beautiful before rationalization, the fact remains that it can be rationalized and explained to others. The others may not get the same sense of spiritual wonder, but they might at least from my description understand where my spiritual experience is coming from. If I explain that I seem to be at the focal point of a brightly colored arc in the sky most people will say "Oh you mean a rainbow" It may have been a mistbow or a moonbow, but I won't quibble. They know and perhaps appreciate from having a similar experience to the one I described what I am talking about.
Similarly with almost any earthbound experience. Many more years ago than I want to admit I was 16 and in the middle of my active God search. I came out of a dark side street late evening and was stunned by the sight of the flood lighted Florence Cathedral across the plaza. Stunned in the sense I could not move or even think. All I could do was gawk at the sight. Later I could explain to my sister what I had seen, and she noted how she also was stunned even though she was expecting it and indeed looking for it.
In any experience on the Earth I can communicate what I experienced in a way that someone else could uniquely identify the experience if not the wonder I experienced. It would seem that someone experiencing God should be able to describe the experience in such a way that at least a sympathetic listener could say "Oh, that was God." It may be too much to ask for a skeptical atheist to recognize it, but at least a believer in some sort of God should recognize the description.
The difference is quite simple when I experience anything of the Earth even something spiritual in the atheist sense of being true, or beautiful before rationalization, the fact remains that it can be rationalized and explained to others. The others may not get the same sense of spiritual wonder, but they might at least from my description understand where my spiritual experience is coming from. If I explain that I seem to be at the focal point of a brightly colored arc in the sky most people will say "Oh you mean a rainbow" It may have been a mistbow or a moonbow, but I won't quibble. They know and perhaps appreciate from having a similar experience to the one I described what I am talking about.
Similarly with almost any earthbound experience. Many more years ago than I want to admit I was 16 and in the middle of my active God search. I came out of a dark side street late evening and was stunned by the sight of the flood lighted Florence Cathedral across the plaza. Stunned in the sense I could not move or even think. All I could do was gawk at the sight. Later I could explain to my sister what I had seen, and she noted how she also was stunned even though she was expecting it and indeed looking for it.
In any experience on the Earth I can communicate what I experienced in a way that someone else could uniquely identify the experience if not the wonder I experienced. It would seem that someone experiencing God should be able to describe the experience in such a way that at least a sympathetic listener could say "Oh, that was God." It may be too much to ask for a skeptical atheist to recognize it, but at least a believer in some sort of God should recognize the description.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Modern Mythology
Knock on God's Door
Probably because we have much more relevant modern mythologies that relate to the modern technological and rational world than Bronze Age desert marauder stories.
I don't see how a patriarchal, high maternal and infant mortality rate society can have any stories, myths or Gods that are relevant to a modern technological society where one conception equals one economically productive and reproductive adult of either gender.
Added to that is the problem for faith based religions that information is essentially a free good in today's society. Even the most repressed, burkaed, housebound female can access the internet to see how the rest of the world lives. It won't change many lives but it will change enough to create social networks that will change their world. Maybe even ours.
Probably because we have much more relevant modern mythologies that relate to the modern technological and rational world than Bronze Age desert marauder stories.
I don't see how a patriarchal, high maternal and infant mortality rate society can have any stories, myths or Gods that are relevant to a modern technological society where one conception equals one economically productive and reproductive adult of either gender.
Added to that is the problem for faith based religions that information is essentially a free good in today's society. Even the most repressed, burkaed, housebound female can access the internet to see how the rest of the world lives. It won't change many lives but it will change enough to create social networks that will change their world. Maybe even ours.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
A World without Borders
Is Theism Simply Fear Of Facing Reality? - beliefnet
Unfortunately it won't be for everybody. Religious and political leaders will opt as many people out of it as they can to maintain their control. In the US the politico-religious axis will opt most of the country out of this revolution. This is the reality that religions are seeking to avoid. Or looking at it crassly, religions are using to sell the big rock candy mountain in the next life, to substitute for the reality in this life that they cannot deliver.
I like to imagine a world without borders, without local goverments or political parties , without different religions or beliefs and where equality is not and empty word but a reality, where diversity is respected and appreciated for its contribution to enrich cultures, and where nationalities are not seen as a threat because there will be only one, Earth citizenship.This world is closer than you think. It is a world-wide coalition of educated intelligent people leading the world into a gender, skin color, nationality neutral rational meritocracy. It is being lead by the secular Chinese, abetted by secular Americans, Europeans, Indians, Australians and several other secular parts of the world. I say secular, as most religions discourage the rational education required to be a part of this coalition especially for women who are the natural leaders in this coalition.
Silverada
Unfortunately it won't be for everybody. Religious and political leaders will opt as many people out of it as they can to maintain their control. In the US the politico-religious axis will opt most of the country out of this revolution. This is the reality that religions are seeking to avoid. Or looking at it crassly, religions are using to sell the big rock candy mountain in the next life, to substitute for the reality in this life that they cannot deliver.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
On Atheism
Comment on Philosophy Talk
Atheism is not a definition of anybody's life. Atheism is simply an answer to "Do you believe?" or "Are you saved?"
Atheists get their meaning, purpose, morals and ethics the same place God does. From the tribe they belong to. Modern tribes are more diffused and amorphous than traditional tribes, but we know who we are.
The afterlife is a con game that has no meaning for most atheists, even a theist like Forrest Church recognizes that the best we can do is live a life worth dying for. After that, who knows, and who cares. Any afterlife mediator that doesn't look at that life that was worth dying for isn't worth worrying about.
Atheism is not a definition of anybody's life. Atheism is simply an answer to "Do you believe?" or "Are you saved?"
Atheists get their meaning, purpose, morals and ethics the same place God does. From the tribe they belong to. Modern tribes are more diffused and amorphous than traditional tribes, but we know who we are.
The afterlife is a con game that has no meaning for most atheists, even a theist like Forrest Church recognizes that the best we can do is live a life worth dying for. After that, who knows, and who cares. Any afterlife mediator that doesn't look at that life that was worth dying for isn't worth worrying about.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Existential Issues in Belief
Beliefnet - Religion and Mind
It is the belief not the existence of the referent that causes all the problems. A person believing in the reality of John Galt as a living, historical person, is not going change herm behavior if you can prove that Galt never existed outside of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Better to attack the belief itself as dysfunctional than waste time attacking the referent.
Perhaps wisdom is being able to learn values for living independent of the existential reality of the originator of those values. I think I have learned many useful values, and rejected as many as useless from Jesus whether or not he ever existed as per the stories told about him. I can say the same about Lazarus Long who certainly never existed. Why is the existence of either an issue.
It is the belief not the existence of the referent that causes all the problems. A person believing in the reality of John Galt as a living, historical person, is not going change herm behavior if you can prove that Galt never existed outside of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Better to attack the belief itself as dysfunctional than waste time attacking the referent.
Perhaps wisdom is being able to learn values for living independent of the existential reality of the originator of those values. I think I have learned many useful values, and rejected as many as useless from Jesus whether or not he ever existed as per the stories told about him. I can say the same about Lazarus Long who certainly never existed. Why is the existence of either an issue.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
ERSSG Houskeeping
(I was just visiting my daughter, son in law, grandson and brand new grandson. My daughter and son in law are pigs. They never met a closet door they wanted to shut or a bed they wanted to make. It would drive me nuts--but it is their home, they are great parents, and if I need to wash my feet before I go to bed, it isn't that big of a deal...)
It seems to be a trend. Parents who share parenting and have high level jobs, something has to give. Appearances are less important in their lives. Also part of the deal in removing the contraceptive is that the other partner usually a man is going to do more than his share of the housework. Men in general are not socialized as children to be OCD about neatness, closed closet doors, made beds, dusting etc. As long as the floor is vacuumed once or twice a month, there are clean clothes in the drawers, there is food on the counter when it is his turn, and the dishwasher gets
run so there are clean dishes to put the food in, what's the problem?
It seems to be a trend. Parents who share parenting and have high level jobs, something has to give. Appearances are less important in their lives. Also part of the deal in removing the contraceptive is that the other partner usually a man is going to do more than his share of the housework. Men in general are not socialized as children to be OCD about neatness, closed closet doors, made beds, dusting etc. As long as the floor is vacuumed once or twice a month, there are clean clothes in the drawers, there is food on the counter when it is his turn, and the dishwasher gets
run so there are clean dishes to put the food in, what's the problem?
Friday, June 24, 2011
Meaning
If you treat meaning as a quest you will never discover it. The meaning of life is apparent to anyone who lives intentionally and rationally. I should probably add realistically with respect to life's finite duration. It is not provided by God or anyone else. This is not to say a theist cannot discover meaning in life, but as a quest to find what God intends is a open invitation to the con artists who are happy to satisfy that quest.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Biology of Ethics
The Biology of Ethics - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education: "Churchland, professor emerita of philosophy at the University of California at San Diego, has been best known for her work on the nature of consciousness. But now, with a new book, Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality (Princeton University Press), she is taking her perspective into fresh terrain: ethics. And the story she tells about morality is, as you'd expect, heavily biological, emphasizing the role of the peptide oxytocin, as well as related neurochemicals.
Oxytocin's primary purpose appears to be in solidifying the bond between mother and infant, but Churchland argues—drawing on the work of biologists—that there are significant spillover effects: Bonds of empathy lubricated by oxytocin expand to include, first, more distant kin and then other members of one's in-group. (Another neurochemical, aregenine vasopressin, plays a related role, as do endogenous opiates, which reinforce the appeal of cooperation by making it feel good.)"
Oxytocin's primary purpose appears to be in solidifying the bond between mother and infant, but Churchland argues—drawing on the work of biologists—that there are significant spillover effects: Bonds of empathy lubricated by oxytocin expand to include, first, more distant kin and then other members of one's in-group. (Another neurochemical, aregenine vasopressin, plays a related role, as do endogenous opiates, which reinforce the appeal of cooperation by making it feel good.)"
Facing Death
Is Theism Simply ... The Fear of Facing Reality? - Beliefnet
I suspect you will find that for those of us who accept the permanence of death anything, even God, is a distraction we cannot afford. I am too busy living each day as if it were the last, doing what I can to make this space I live in more inviting and user friendly for those who will inherit it I can't say I fear death. I plan as if it will never come, although I know it will. There will be, as my late mother bequeathed to me, 'Things I haven't finished' but I will have done what I can undistracted by planning for the unknown.
I have found that all God concepts are so encrusted with the barnacles of a violent and hateful past that it is better to rediscover human values that underlie the religious dogma. Humans evolved as tribes, and once we got beyond a face group tribe things began to fall apart, imperfectly glued back together with God and religions. I find it useful to go back to the tribal mores: be nice to those in the tribe, help all the children in the tribe grow to useful intelligent adults, and make the tribal space a better place for the whole tribe. I try to generalize that to the large and amorphous tribe I consider to be my Social Support Group, that is, people who have the same values and mores that I do.
I suspect you will find that for those of us who accept the permanence of death anything, even God, is a distraction we cannot afford. I am too busy living each day as if it were the last, doing what I can to make this space I live in more inviting and user friendly for those who will inherit it I can't say I fear death. I plan as if it will never come, although I know it will. There will be, as my late mother bequeathed to me, 'Things I haven't finished' but I will have done what I can undistracted by planning for the unknown.
I have found that all God concepts are so encrusted with the barnacles of a violent and hateful past that it is better to rediscover human values that underlie the religious dogma. Humans evolved as tribes, and once we got beyond a face group tribe things began to fall apart, imperfectly glued back together with God and religions. I find it useful to go back to the tribal mores: be nice to those in the tribe, help all the children in the tribe grow to useful intelligent adults, and make the tribal space a better place for the whole tribe. I try to generalize that to the large and amorphous tribe I consider to be my Social Support Group, that is, people who have the same values and mores that I do.
Friday, June 10, 2011
No Afterlife?
Is Theism Simply ... The Fear of Facing Reality? - Beliefnet
No afterlife at all. When I die, nothing remains but a few ashes. If I have done my job in this life I will have affected a lot of people who will either grow with it and affect others, or not. In either case I neither know nor care after death. I do however, know and care now and that affects the way I will conduct whatever life is left to me. And has affected the way I have conducted my life up to this point. I have seen people I affected grow to greatness. I am content.
No afterlife at all. When I die, nothing remains but a few ashes. If I have done my job in this life I will have affected a lot of people who will either grow with it and affect others, or not. In either case I neither know nor care after death. I do however, know and care now and that affects the way I will conduct whatever life is left to me. And has affected the way I have conducted my life up to this point. I have seen people I affected grow to greatness. I am content.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Atheist Values
Differences in outlook - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community
Most non-believers I know are interested in social values and the direction of human evolution, neither of which is bounded or delimited. Much of the thinking in this area is found in fiction, that most do not recognize as atheist until you realize that nothing in the fiction depends on God. Steinbeck for example superficially uses religious themes in East of Eden but it is one of the most profoundly humanist books I have ever read and reread frequently I might add. Similarly for Grapes of Wrath. None of the major characters can or do get any help or guidance from God in their attempt to create a livable society for the propertyless. Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Pournelle-Niven are all working out the ramifications of social structures without God. Ostensibly telling fictional stories about the future, they are dealing with real situations that exist in societies today, and working them out without the help of God. And not incidentally showing how such societies can work quite well in many cases.
The other, much more difficult source of information about atheists working out the problems of living is to observe the lives of graduates of the top universities. Very few get their direction or inspiration from God in working out the messy and unbounded problems of making a contribution to their society through their work, perhaps in business, but frequently in a non-profit, the arts, or academia, living and raising families that will carry their values and aspirations forward. Most are too busy to blog, but an interesting source that many depend on is peers in the social networks on line. Almost always simply links to interesting idea sources, but once a trusted atheist acquires a following others feed links that are reposted for those interested. This source is obviously quite new. And used by Churches effectively to promote religion, but the secular world is using it effectively as well.
I am not sure how any of this might help us find common ground, as it appears to me that God solutions are necessarily static and conservative, and the atheist solutions fluid and nebulous. Uncertainty is part and parcel of an atheist life, as the only certainty is death. Living in a way to justify having lived is an important issue for most atheists. God won't help.
Most non-believers I know are interested in social values and the direction of human evolution, neither of which is bounded or delimited. Much of the thinking in this area is found in fiction, that most do not recognize as atheist until you realize that nothing in the fiction depends on God. Steinbeck for example superficially uses religious themes in East of Eden but it is one of the most profoundly humanist books I have ever read and reread frequently I might add. Similarly for Grapes of Wrath. None of the major characters can or do get any help or guidance from God in their attempt to create a livable society for the propertyless. Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Pournelle-Niven are all working out the ramifications of social structures without God. Ostensibly telling fictional stories about the future, they are dealing with real situations that exist in societies today, and working them out without the help of God. And not incidentally showing how such societies can work quite well in many cases.
The other, much more difficult source of information about atheists working out the problems of living is to observe the lives of graduates of the top universities. Very few get their direction or inspiration from God in working out the messy and unbounded problems of making a contribution to their society through their work, perhaps in business, but frequently in a non-profit, the arts, or academia, living and raising families that will carry their values and aspirations forward. Most are too busy to blog, but an interesting source that many depend on is peers in the social networks on line. Almost always simply links to interesting idea sources, but once a trusted atheist acquires a following others feed links that are reposted for those interested. This source is obviously quite new. And used by Churches effectively to promote religion, but the secular world is using it effectively as well.
I am not sure how any of this might help us find common ground, as it appears to me that God solutions are necessarily static and conservative, and the atheist solutions fluid and nebulous. Uncertainty is part and parcel of an atheist life, as the only certainty is death. Living in a way to justify having lived is an important issue for most atheists. God won't help.
Atheist Lfe Stages.
Is Theism Simply Born And Persist Due To The Fear of Facing Reality? - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community
If I may respectfully offer an alternative for an atheist. As a youth with a lifetime ahead one has plenty of life to waste even if one is vaguely aware that death is somewhere ahead and final. So one wastes it discovering what is of transient value and what might be of more value to self and society. In midlife one is so busy with creating value for self, family and society that thoughts of the end of life seldom intrude. After the creative torch is passed to children and/or the creative successors at work, 50 is as good an age as any, that the end of life becomes apparant and one reflects on the contributions one has made, and what still is left to be done to help those carrying on the legacy. Telling stories about life lessons learned is a common solution, either live if one is fortunate enough to have the successors nearby, or in writing if not. Self published books that may have surprising impact far beyond their intended audience of friends and family, or which languish on shelves. The value is in the creation, not the result.
I know of one atheist who is struggling to stay alive to finish volume IV of an immigrant's life story that is resonating with another immigrant from a different country in a different era. Worthless? Easing into death? I think not. But the pressure of impending death is powerful, and the work left to be done is reason enough not to go quietly into the night.
I also think that after the age of fifty or so we should gradually become disenchanted with life so as to ease more gracefully into our departure from it.
Ken
If I may respectfully offer an alternative for an atheist. As a youth with a lifetime ahead one has plenty of life to waste even if one is vaguely aware that death is somewhere ahead and final. So one wastes it discovering what is of transient value and what might be of more value to self and society. In midlife one is so busy with creating value for self, family and society that thoughts of the end of life seldom intrude. After the creative torch is passed to children and/or the creative successors at work, 50 is as good an age as any, that the end of life becomes apparant and one reflects on the contributions one has made, and what still is left to be done to help those carrying on the legacy. Telling stories about life lessons learned is a common solution, either live if one is fortunate enough to have the successors nearby, or in writing if not. Self published books that may have surprising impact far beyond their intended audience of friends and family, or which languish on shelves. The value is in the creation, not the result.
I know of one atheist who is struggling to stay alive to finish volume IV of an immigrant's life story that is resonating with another immigrant from a different country in a different era. Worthless? Easing into death? I think not. But the pressure of impending death is powerful, and the work left to be done is reason enough not to go quietly into the night.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
On a Life Worth Dying For.
Is Theism Simply Born And Persist Due To The Fear of Facing Reality? - Beliefnet
Accepting the reality and finality of death, does not lead at all to fear of dying today or any day. When the time comes that the mind and body cannot maintain their integrity they will cease to function. In the mean time there are many things that a person needs to do to affect the society of which hesh is a part to make that society more human friendly. Some of those things will have lasting effects, some perhaps will have none, but all are important reasons for living today, and as long as one can affect others in the society.
Death might well be described as a condition when affecting others is no longer possible. It is nothing to fear, if one has affected others properly they will carry on the task of making society a better place for humans, and life in the larger sense goes on, even though the no longer useful individual is not a part of it.
Today I can see people I have affected taking the society to places I cannot conceive, but which I approve of. Whether I die today or some day in the future I am content. But I am not finished affecting others in my society. So until the time comes when I can no longer do so I will continue to live my life so that it is worth dying for. Thanks, Forrest Church.
Accepting the reality and finality of death, does not lead at all to fear of dying today or any day. When the time comes that the mind and body cannot maintain their integrity they will cease to function. In the mean time there are many things that a person needs to do to affect the society of which hesh is a part to make that society more human friendly. Some of those things will have lasting effects, some perhaps will have none, but all are important reasons for living today, and as long as one can affect others in the society.
Death might well be described as a condition when affecting others is no longer possible. It is nothing to fear, if one has affected others properly they will carry on the task of making society a better place for humans, and life in the larger sense goes on, even though the no longer useful individual is not a part of it.
Today I can see people I have affected taking the society to places I cannot conceive, but which I approve of. Whether I die today or some day in the future I am content. But I am not finished affecting others in my society. So until the time comes when I can no longer do so I will continue to live my life so that it is worth dying for. Thanks, Forrest Church.
Monday, June 6, 2011
the unfulfilled dream
uuworld.org : the unfulfilled dream
Note the linked article is necessary background.
As long as UU does not define a belief statement it will remain a social club that meets on Sunday.
UU's seem to fear any statement containing God as offensive to us atheists, but Forrest Church's Cathedral even had windows for atheists. In that Cathedral atheists could worship meaningfully with their theist friends. The humanist God of Jesus (Matt 22:37-40) who loves all Herm neighbors is perfectly acceptable to most atheists. They won't believe, but as a unifying principle with their theist friends God can work as an avatar if not a deity.
As a side benefit you will probably attract a lot of Christians who are fed up with Paul's trinity and have refocused their theology on the Synoptics and Matt 22:37-40 in particular.
Note the linked article is necessary background.
As long as UU does not define a belief statement it will remain a social club that meets on Sunday.
UU's seem to fear any statement containing God as offensive to us atheists, but Forrest Church's Cathedral even had windows for atheists. In that Cathedral atheists could worship meaningfully with their theist friends. The humanist God of Jesus (Matt 22:37-40) who loves all Herm neighbors is perfectly acceptable to most atheists. They won't believe, but as a unifying principle with their theist friends God can work as an avatar if not a deity.
As a side benefit you will probably attract a lot of Christians who are fed up with Paul's trinity and have refocused their theology on the Synoptics and Matt 22:37-40 in particular.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The Education Common Privatized.
Blogger: Free and Responsible Search - Post a Comment:
The common that is being stolen today is the right of every child to the education hesh needs to claim herm place at the workbench of ideas. Good public education has become the property of those that can afford the homes in the few good school districts and vote for the local taxes that support them. With some charity to a few who can make the trek and get in.
This is the modern stake that was once given to anyone that chose to pay attention in school. It is now denied to most.
The common that is being stolen today is the right of every child to the education hesh needs to claim herm place at the workbench of ideas. Good public education has become the property of those that can afford the homes in the few good school districts and vote for the local taxes that support them. With some charity to a few who can make the trek and get in.
This is the modern stake that was once given to anyone that chose to pay attention in school. It is now denied to most.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Random Thoughts from The Believing Brain.
I have just started The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer. This post is a collection of quotes and reactions not to be taken too seriously. It is definitely not a review, and should not be quoted as such.
"The brain is a belief engine.
Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow: Belief-dependent realism." p5
Pattern seeking certainly, but a belief engine? I think not.
"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons." p36
Certainly true for many smart people that are not trained to be skeptical about beliefs in general. There may in fact be two types of people, believers and for lack of a better term philosophical non-believers. Or in Heinlein's terms learners.
Chapter 4 Patternicity
People believe weird things because of an evolved need to believe unweird things. p62
He is assuming that there is no evolutionary pressure to sort out the weird things from the unwierd, since the cost of believing in weird things is assumed to be zero. This may be true for the evolutionary scenario for individuals, the theory being that there is no cost for being skittish of wind in the grass compared with the cost of a lion in the grass. But in a sense this is a Pascal Wager argument. If one shies at every odd movement, one will never get the hunting or gathering done. There must be a BS detector built into the belief system even at the primitive level.
The rest of the chapter is a series of experiments in pattern seeking in uncertain situations. In the Ono experiments the subjects were in effect told to find patterns. "If you do something you will get points on the counter." The Catania and Cutts experiment also created the impression of pattern possibility. Encouraging pattern seeking behavior involving the two buttons.
Chapter 5 Agenticity.
Typical of a skeptic believer Shermer picks extreme examples to mask the underlying reality of the natural duality of the human mind. As if you have to be in extreme conditions to be aware of the inner control segment of the mind. True most of us don't hallucinate doubles or OBEs or God for that matter, but the society imprints the necessary and life maintaining control mechanisms on the subconscious mind that we seldom are aware of. Including the necessary social controls necessary for getting along with "our people." It also takes care of the extreme staying alive situations by essentially shutting down the vaunted rational cortical control and going back to the basics of breathing and putting one foot in front of the other.
He includes the obligatory skeptical look at some of the weirder manifestations of this duality. Sort of like the cartoon ex-drunk sweeping the drinks off the bar. Too much time spent on paranormal psychic garbage, which are God substitute ways of staying in contact with and attempting to manage the inner control mechanism.
Chapter 6 Part 1. The neurological argument for the mind. He starts by demolishing a straw man argument of a mental force argument for the mind, weak argument weak rebuttal. The description of the working of neurons is detailed, and informative, about the right mix of science and gee whiz for the educated layperson who is the presumed target for the book. The discussion of dopamine as the belief mediator it detailed and persuasive. I am skeptical of experimental protocols using groups of skeptics and believers as subjects, as the skeptics seem to be believers in skepticism, that is ESP and the paranormal is crap. As a true non-believer, I wonder if some of the pattern finding activities might show different results for those with a finely honed pattern finding facility with an excellent BS detector as well. Apparently more to come on this issue. A nice few pages on patternivity, creativity and madness. Using 3 Nobel prize winners Feinman of A bomb fame, Mullis of Polymerase Chain Reaction fame, and Nash whose game theory equilibrium is certifiably crazy. Feinman sane and creative Nash Schizophrenic and creative and Mullis somewhere in the middle, a definite believer in weird things, but somehow able to sort out the weirdness useful enough for a Nobel. I am not convinced that the craziness is not in the eye of the beholder, Shermer in this case.
Chapter 6b Good discussion of mind-brain that makes me wonder about whether all monists are believers in the sense of either the mind belongs to God or it belongs to me as actions of the brain. Quot\ing Paul Bloom: "We are natural born dualists." He then goes on to defend monism as an unnatural state of affairs, which I find involved belief. He then goes on to explain the Theory of Mind (TOM) which is the way we think about how we think and how others think. Tying it all together with agency, mirror neurons, and story creation. According to Sam Harris experiment on 14 subjects some "believers" some not. We perceive all things as true and evaluation of falsity is a separate function. Even religious statements for believers and non alike p135-7 I wonder if any "real" non-believers, (acreds) that is non-believers unrelated to religious beliefs were a part of the experiment. I would be curious to see the raw data and see if there was an "anomalous" result that was thrown out. Probably not as I find acreds to be a very small segment of even the secular and especially the skeptic population.
P143-4 Making a lot of stew from the oyster of the Harris poll. Where are the unbelievers in the dthe 6 pretty well cover the waterfront. ata? Ok for believers in afterlife he gives some plausible reasons. Pick one and you can explain anything.
148-50 way too much attention and debunking given to ESP theory of the afterlife. To be expected from a believing skeptic. Lots of what is the mechanism and reliance on the data protocols of esp skeptics. Look for esp under the streetlight of heavy emotional content: Lovers and musicians and dancers.
P152-6 Long discussion of NDEs and drug induced OBEs which he as expected confirm his belief in monism.
It may be true that the brain is 9integral with the mind, but as I read the data a natural dualism explains things better.
Amusing but basically useless CNN panel including all of the usual suspects Depak Chopra, Sanjay Gupta, and a few NDE survivors and reincarnations for color. I won’t watch the replay.
The wrap up of the chapter is the counter argument that lack of afterlife simply makes this life important. As I use it all the time myself in almost the same words he has to be right.
It is nice to see that believers and acreds can come to the same conclusions occasionally.
P171 In his discussion of VMAT2 gene which seems to give 'Self forgetfulness' and "transpersonal identification" and "mysticism". The link to nicotine addiction seems plausible to me, absent other influences which was the basis for the study, the link to God p172 seems like a leap of faith. It would seem that eg Mormon eschewing of nicotine, caffeine, and other addictive substances, would lead to the opposite conclusion that VMAT2 would lead away from God belief to self actualization.
p 170 the link of DRD4 to risk seeking behavior seems unrelated to God belief to me, not sure what Shermer is trying to get to here. It would seem that risk aversion is more closely related to God beliefs, and therefore low DRD4=high dopamine fix naturally would lead to no risk belief in God.
I wonder about this psychobabble self-transcendence. "Becoming totally absorbed in an activity, feeling connected to the larger world, and an unwillingness to disbelieve in unfashionable things like ESP (my restatement of the last) sounds like simple rational intelligence to me not spirituality. Dopamine makes you feel good about the way you look at the world. If you look at it without beliefs or prejudices, and concentrate on things that make the larger world a better place of course you will get a dopamine high. Any relationship to God beliefs is clearly Shermers belief in a believing brain.
pp172-184 Conventional skeptical analysis of God belief as created by humans to fill a God hole in their brain. Certainly true for a large portion of the population who will disagree with the human creation part and assert a Creator.
p186 "It is time to step out of our evolutionary heritage and our historical traditions and embrace science as the best tool ever devised for explaining how the world works. It is time to work together to create a social and political world that embraces moral principles [Whose?]and yet allows natural human diversity to floursh." "Religion cannot ...." Although he denies it typical liberal skeptic BS.
Chapter 9. Conventional skeptical look at the alien as replacement for God. Now that religion has lost its elevated position. He uses it to buttress his premise that the belief comes first and justification later. It works just fine.
Chapter 10. Standard debunking of conspiracy theories focusing on 9/11. Not enough focus on why conspiracy theorists think the way they do.
Chapt 11 Politics. He begins with Jost's Meta-study of conservatives linking conservatism to psychological management of uncertainty and fear. I am less comfortable with the endorsement of inequality. Haight points out the group binding and support of essential institutions as part of the conservative pattern. He Lakoffalso mentions the Political Mind, Lakoff and The Political Brain, Weston p234 with the liberal trope (This God forbid) rationality, intelligence, & optimism. This conflicts with Shermer's belief bias toward Libertarianism. He confirms this by the association of university profs with liberalism. Duh they all are smart, flexible and rational enough to get a PhD. [Also at least in my experience they have left behind their religious beliefs if they ever had any. The selection process is reinforced by the conservative religious bias against education.] Interesting factoid, USA Today is the most centrist media. Probably due to its primary market in the hotel and travel areas where money talks and the well off are either liberal or successful conservatives generally at least well educated.
He then conflates p237-40 belief based morality with politics using Haight and Graham's 5 innate and universal moral parameters. 1. Harm/Care. 2. Fairness/Reciprocity. 3. In-Group/Loyalty. 4. Authority/Respect. 5. Purity/sanctity.
P 240 "Liberals question authority, celebrate diversity, and often flaunt(sic) faith and tradition in order to care for the weak and oppressed" ?????
"Religion and Government are the two systems for social control and watchdogs" to control the free riders. Shrmer then wastes a few pages with different studies using different words to confirm his belief that liberals weight H/C, F/R higher than G/L A/R & P/S with conservatives the opposite.
He then spends several pages setting up the justification for his Libertarian BS. (Which according to the thesis of the book came first.)
Chapter 12 101 ways our brains fool us into thinking we are right. He starts with one of my favorites post hoc odds. "A talk show you will never see: Our guest has had several dreams about the death of prominent people none of which have happened. Stay tuned maybe the next one will be confirmed" p260-1 describes a delightful experiment in which 15 Dems and 15 GOPs were wired up and presented statements by Bush and Kerry in which they contradicted themselves. The cognitive areas of the brain were out of the circuit, the emotional areas and conflict resolution areas were hot and everybody got a dopamine fix when their candidate was right.
He goes on to describe all the usual suspects Hindsight bias and self justification bias getting prominent attention, along with a host of other biases people use to avoid thinking about what they are observing.
The obligatory debunking of ESP. [not convincing] but a good discussion of the return to the mean fallacy. The SI Cover jinx is simply back to normal for the athlete after a flurry of good stuff that made the cover. Extraordinary things happen given enough time and attention. It is important to recognize they are just that: things on the tails of the bell curve.
I get the impression that in Chapter 13 Shermer is trying to justify his belief comes first in the face of the fact that the inductive paradigm of science has the potential to put the data before the belief in spite of our inherent tendency in his thesis of belief first. He properly points out that in Terra Incognata the absence of belief is liberating, and frees science to create de novo theories, unclouded by belief. But he seems a bit uncomfortable with this conclusion and points to belief based interpretations of data by Columbus and even Galileo in his interpretation of the Saturn data. It seems he is fighting a confirmation bias of his own Belief first belief. Which is threatened by the Scientific Method. He claims to be examining this in the final chapters. We shall see.
Chapt 14a Even astronomers can be victims of confirmation bias, but eventually science prevails, as a lead in to the orgins question.
Chapt 14b. Apparently an extended confirmation bias of Goddidntdoit. Shermer presents a bunch of origin of the universe theories as if they have more value than Goddidit. He messes around with the theist argument of the cosmological constants being just right for our existence as if there needs to be an explanation. Or as if no explanation is conceding the Goddidit argument. Amusing speculations to be sure as a confirmation bias that Goddidntdoit. But what is wrong with the universe exists, I exist, it all works. The only reasonable answer to why? is don't know, don't care.
From Beliefnet:"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."
—Micheal Shermer--"
In his most recent book The Believing Mind, Times Books, 2011 Shermer makes a strong case that the human brain is necessarily a belief engine. His case is that pattern seeking and assigning agency to the patterns is a survival trait built in to the brain. His claim is that we believe first and think about it later, if ever.
In my experience this is as true of atheists and skeptics (including Shermer) as it is for religious believers. As many will testify dragging a belief say about UFOs out and trying to ask whether the belief is justified or not is extremely difficult for most people. Whether you are for 'em or ag'in 'em can you really decide you just don't know? My experience is that most people can't on any belief based subject which is to say, if Shermer is right, all subjects. It as if "I just don't know" just doesn't have a home in the human brain. "That's right!" has many homes OFC and ACC and lots of reward mechanisms in the ventral striatum in the brain. P 260. This makes a lot of sense, in the modern world "I don't know" gets in the way of many necessary decisions. Which stock to buy, which way to bet on a business decision, etc, as they say, it is better to go with the gut, i.e. the belief systems in the brain, and just do it.
I of course can't speak for Shermer but one of the reasons I enjoyed the book is that he makes a hard scientific case, that is materialistic and rational, for woo-woo. Maybe I am belief disabled, or I had the wrong upbringing and went to the wrong school, but I have never been able to understand how extremely intelligent and rational people can believe weird things. I think I understand it better now, but I am still an outsider looking in.
Whew, finally done. Formal review on Thinking on the Blue Roads
"The brain is a belief engine.
Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow: Belief-dependent realism." p5
Pattern seeking certainly, but a belief engine? I think not.
"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons." p36
Certainly true for many smart people that are not trained to be skeptical about beliefs in general. There may in fact be two types of people, believers and for lack of a better term philosophical non-believers. Or in Heinlein's terms learners.
I have no beliefs. Belief gets in the way of learning. Lazarus Long Time Enough For Love, Robert A Heinlein, 1973 p20.Chapter 3 The journey of a believer from nowhere to religion to fundie skepticism. The will to believe will not be denied. I hope he does more with his thinking up to the conversion in 12th grade.
Chapter 4 Patternicity
People believe weird things because of an evolved need to believe unweird things. p62
He is assuming that there is no evolutionary pressure to sort out the weird things from the unwierd, since the cost of believing in weird things is assumed to be zero. This may be true for the evolutionary scenario for individuals, the theory being that there is no cost for being skittish of wind in the grass compared with the cost of a lion in the grass. But in a sense this is a Pascal Wager argument. If one shies at every odd movement, one will never get the hunting or gathering done. There must be a BS detector built into the belief system even at the primitive level.
The rest of the chapter is a series of experiments in pattern seeking in uncertain situations. In the Ono experiments the subjects were in effect told to find patterns. "If you do something you will get points on the counter." The Catania and Cutts experiment also created the impression of pattern possibility. Encouraging pattern seeking behavior involving the two buttons.
Chapter 5 Agenticity.
Typical of a skeptic believer Shermer picks extreme examples to mask the underlying reality of the natural duality of the human mind. As if you have to be in extreme conditions to be aware of the inner control segment of the mind. True most of us don't hallucinate doubles or OBEs or God for that matter, but the society imprints the necessary and life maintaining control mechanisms on the subconscious mind that we seldom are aware of. Including the necessary social controls necessary for getting along with "our people." It also takes care of the extreme staying alive situations by essentially shutting down the vaunted rational cortical control and going back to the basics of breathing and putting one foot in front of the other.
He includes the obligatory skeptical look at some of the weirder manifestations of this duality. Sort of like the cartoon ex-drunk sweeping the drinks off the bar. Too much time spent on paranormal psychic garbage, which are God substitute ways of staying in contact with and attempting to manage the inner control mechanism.
It was just one of many readings [of conversations with the dead] (at ninety dollars a pop) conducted [by one of the gurus for the psychic crowd.]The position of shaman... is lovely work, if you can stomach it. Lazarus Long.
Chapter 6 Part 1. The neurological argument for the mind. He starts by demolishing a straw man argument of a mental force argument for the mind, weak argument weak rebuttal. The description of the working of neurons is detailed, and informative, about the right mix of science and gee whiz for the educated layperson who is the presumed target for the book. The discussion of dopamine as the belief mediator it detailed and persuasive. I am skeptical of experimental protocols using groups of skeptics and believers as subjects, as the skeptics seem to be believers in skepticism, that is ESP and the paranormal is crap. As a true non-believer, I wonder if some of the pattern finding activities might show different results for those with a finely honed pattern finding facility with an excellent BS detector as well. Apparently more to come on this issue. A nice few pages on patternivity, creativity and madness. Using 3 Nobel prize winners Feinman of A bomb fame, Mullis of Polymerase Chain Reaction fame, and Nash whose game theory equilibrium is certifiably crazy. Feinman sane and creative Nash Schizophrenic and creative and Mullis somewhere in the middle, a definite believer in weird things, but somehow able to sort out the weirdness useful enough for a Nobel. I am not convinced that the craziness is not in the eye of the beholder, Shermer in this case.
Chapter 6b Good discussion of mind-brain that makes me wonder about whether all monists are believers in the sense of either the mind belongs to God or it belongs to me as actions of the brain. Quot\ing Paul Bloom: "We are natural born dualists." He then goes on to defend monism as an unnatural state of affairs, which I find involved belief. He then goes on to explain the Theory of Mind (TOM) which is the way we think about how we think and how others think. Tying it all together with agency, mirror neurons, and story creation. According to Sam Harris experiment on 14 subjects some "believers" some not. We perceive all things as true and evaluation of falsity is a separate function. Even religious statements for believers and non alike p135-7 I wonder if any "real" non-believers, (acreds) that is non-believers unrelated to religious beliefs were a part of the experiment. I would be curious to see the raw data and see if there was an "anomalous" result that was thrown out. Probably not as I find acreds to be a very small segment of even the secular and especially the skeptic population.
P143-4 Making a lot of stew from the oyster of the Harris poll. Where are the unbelievers in the dthe 6 pretty well cover the waterfront. ata? Ok for believers in afterlife he gives some plausible reasons. Pick one and you can explain anything.
148-50 way too much attention and debunking given to ESP theory of the afterlife. To be expected from a believing skeptic. Lots of what is the mechanism and reliance on the data protocols of esp skeptics. Look for esp under the streetlight of heavy emotional content: Lovers and musicians and dancers.
P152-6 Long discussion of NDEs and drug induced OBEs which he as expected confirm his belief in monism.
It may be true that the brain is 9integral with the mind, but as I read the data a natural dualism explains things better.
Amusing but basically useless CNN panel including all of the usual suspects Depak Chopra, Sanjay Gupta, and a few NDE survivors and reincarnations for color. I won’t watch the replay.
The wrap up of the chapter is the counter argument that lack of afterlife simply makes this life important. As I use it all the time myself in almost the same words he has to be right.
It is nice to see that believers and acreds can come to the same conclusions occasionally.
P171 In his discussion of VMAT2 gene which seems to give 'Self forgetfulness' and "transpersonal identification" and "mysticism". The link to nicotine addiction seems plausible to me, absent other influences which was the basis for the study, the link to God p172 seems like a leap of faith. It would seem that eg Mormon eschewing of nicotine, caffeine, and other addictive substances, would lead to the opposite conclusion that VMAT2 would lead away from God belief to self actualization.
p 170 the link of DRD4 to risk seeking behavior seems unrelated to God belief to me, not sure what Shermer is trying to get to here. It would seem that risk aversion is more closely related to God beliefs, and therefore low DRD4=high dopamine fix naturally would lead to no risk belief in God.
I wonder about this psychobabble self-transcendence. "Becoming totally absorbed in an activity, feeling connected to the larger world, and an unwillingness to disbelieve in unfashionable things like ESP (my restatement of the last) sounds like simple rational intelligence to me not spirituality. Dopamine makes you feel good about the way you look at the world. If you look at it without beliefs or prejudices, and concentrate on things that make the larger world a better place of course you will get a dopamine high. Any relationship to God beliefs is clearly Shermers belief in a believing brain.
pp172-184 Conventional skeptical analysis of God belief as created by humans to fill a God hole in their brain. Certainly true for a large portion of the population who will disagree with the human creation part and assert a Creator.
p186 "It is time to step out of our evolutionary heritage and our historical traditions and embrace science as the best tool ever devised for explaining how the world works. It is time to work together to create a social and political world that embraces moral principles [Whose?]and yet allows natural human diversity to floursh." "Religion cannot ...." Although he denies it typical liberal skeptic BS.
Chapter 9. Conventional skeptical look at the alien as replacement for God. Now that religion has lost its elevated position. He uses it to buttress his premise that the belief comes first and justification later. It works just fine.
Chapter 10. Standard debunking of conspiracy theories focusing on 9/11. Not enough focus on why conspiracy theorists think the way they do.
Chapt 11 Politics. He begins with Jost's Meta-study of conservatives linking conservatism to psychological management of uncertainty and fear. I am less comfortable with the endorsement of inequality. Haight points out the group binding and support of essential institutions as part of the conservative pattern. He Lakoffalso mentions the Political Mind, Lakoff and The Political Brain, Weston p234 with the liberal trope (This God forbid) rationality, intelligence, & optimism. This conflicts with Shermer's belief bias toward Libertarianism. He confirms this by the association of university profs with liberalism. Duh they all are smart, flexible and rational enough to get a PhD. [Also at least in my experience they have left behind their religious beliefs if they ever had any. The selection process is reinforced by the conservative religious bias against education.] Interesting factoid, USA Today is the most centrist media. Probably due to its primary market in the hotel and travel areas where money talks and the well off are either liberal or successful conservatives generally at least well educated.
He then conflates p237-40 belief based morality with politics using Haight and Graham's 5 innate and universal moral parameters. 1. Harm/Care. 2. Fairness/Reciprocity. 3. In-Group/Loyalty. 4. Authority/Respect. 5. Purity/sanctity.
P 240 "Liberals question authority, celebrate diversity, and often flaunt(sic) faith and tradition in order to care for the weak and oppressed" ?????
"Religion and Government are the two systems for social control and watchdogs" to control the free riders. Shrmer then wastes a few pages with different studies using different words to confirm his belief that liberals weight H/C, F/R higher than G/L A/R & P/S with conservatives the opposite.
He then spends several pages setting up the justification for his Libertarian BS. (Which according to the thesis of the book came first.)
Chapter 12 101 ways our brains fool us into thinking we are right. He starts with one of my favorites post hoc odds. "A talk show you will never see: Our guest has had several dreams about the death of prominent people none of which have happened. Stay tuned maybe the next one will be confirmed" p260-1 describes a delightful experiment in which 15 Dems and 15 GOPs were wired up and presented statements by Bush and Kerry in which they contradicted themselves. The cognitive areas of the brain were out of the circuit, the emotional areas and conflict resolution areas were hot and everybody got a dopamine fix when their candidate was right.
He goes on to describe all the usual suspects Hindsight bias and self justification bias getting prominent attention, along with a host of other biases people use to avoid thinking about what they are observing.
The obligatory debunking of ESP. [not convincing] but a good discussion of the return to the mean fallacy. The SI Cover jinx is simply back to normal for the athlete after a flurry of good stuff that made the cover. Extraordinary things happen given enough time and attention. It is important to recognize they are just that: things on the tails of the bell curve.
I get the impression that in Chapter 13 Shermer is trying to justify his belief comes first in the face of the fact that the inductive paradigm of science has the potential to put the data before the belief in spite of our inherent tendency in his thesis of belief first. He properly points out that in Terra Incognata the absence of belief is liberating, and frees science to create de novo theories, unclouded by belief. But he seems a bit uncomfortable with this conclusion and points to belief based interpretations of data by Columbus and even Galileo in his interpretation of the Saturn data. It seems he is fighting a confirmation bias of his own Belief first belief. Which is threatened by the Scientific Method. He claims to be examining this in the final chapters. We shall see.
Chapt 14a Even astronomers can be victims of confirmation bias, but eventually science prevails, as a lead in to the orgins question.
Chapt 14b. Apparently an extended confirmation bias of Goddidntdoit. Shermer presents a bunch of origin of the universe theories as if they have more value than Goddidit. He messes around with the theist argument of the cosmological constants being just right for our existence as if there needs to be an explanation. Or as if no explanation is conceding the Goddidit argument. Amusing speculations to be sure as a confirmation bias that Goddidntdoit. But what is wrong with the universe exists, I exist, it all works. The only reasonable answer to why? is don't know, don't care.
From Beliefnet:"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."
—Micheal Shermer--"
In his most recent book The Believing Mind, Times Books, 2011 Shermer makes a strong case that the human brain is necessarily a belief engine. His case is that pattern seeking and assigning agency to the patterns is a survival trait built in to the brain. His claim is that we believe first and think about it later, if ever.
In my experience this is as true of atheists and skeptics (including Shermer) as it is for religious believers. As many will testify dragging a belief say about UFOs out and trying to ask whether the belief is justified or not is extremely difficult for most people. Whether you are for 'em or ag'in 'em can you really decide you just don't know? My experience is that most people can't on any belief based subject which is to say, if Shermer is right, all subjects. It as if "I just don't know" just doesn't have a home in the human brain. "That's right!" has many homes OFC and ACC and lots of reward mechanisms in the ventral striatum in the brain. P 260. This makes a lot of sense, in the modern world "I don't know" gets in the way of many necessary decisions. Which stock to buy, which way to bet on a business decision, etc, as they say, it is better to go with the gut, i.e. the belief systems in the brain, and just do it.
I of course can't speak for Shermer but one of the reasons I enjoyed the book is that he makes a hard scientific case, that is materialistic and rational, for woo-woo. Maybe I am belief disabled, or I had the wrong upbringing and went to the wrong school, but I have never been able to understand how extremely intelligent and rational people can believe weird things. I think I understand it better now, but I am still an outsider looking in.
Whew, finally done. Formal review on Thinking on the Blue Roads
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Get Your NBA Cheerleader Out of My Kid’s School
Facebook: "Remington Stone via Susie Rodriguez
Get Your NBA Cheerleader Out of My Kid’s School
blog.pigtailpals.com
Don’t try and tell me that I’m being uptight, or ashamed of the human form, or discriminating against women. What I’m doing is raising the bar, and demanding more. I refuse to settle for the patronizing, sexualized options offered to my daughter.
Tara Dresbach That's an interesting article. On the one hand, there is a push to get cheerleading to be considered a sport in it its own right. On the other hand, a visit from a pro sports team's cheerleading squad doesn't feel quite right.
J'Carlin While it may be true that sports/religious fanatics that dehumanize women should not be permitted to exist in a reasonable world, they do and there is nothing we can do about it. They outnumber us. As long as women of all ages are indoctrinated into being sex objects, what does it gain to prevent them from doing it as well as they can?
J'Carlin Reality check. What do you think of a ballerina?
Suzi Anvin carlin - have you ever LOOKED at a ballerina? I fear gay men are more likely to be attracted to the long, lank, smooth form than straight ones :-P OMG the muscles...
[deleted]
Suzi Anvin
question for you all.... OK would you consider it weird if male pro sports teams visited a high school to talk to promote athletes of their sport? or is it just cuz its cheerleaders? Double standard cuts both ways, both in the sexualizing, AND in the rampant DAMNING of the sexualizing that this response blatantly plays right into. "You have to be sexy but its WRONG BAD WRONG" is not the message we should be reinforcing. You really, truly, will NOT stop the first as long as teens have hormones, so reinforcing the second is really NOT helping...
Suzi Anvin that's their professional uniforms. Would you expect Olympic swimmers to not wear their speedos ever at a school?
Suzi Anvin what you're saying is 'oh, ew, cover up the form, its bad bad bad to be that sexy' the double standard is a real bitch to fight, exactly because it is a DOUBLE standard. its very hard to fight both halves at the same time.
Susie Rodriguez
This is not a case of athletes. There are cheerleaders who are athletes and these aren't them. These are essentially exotic dancers. If you read the article, toward the bottom is a side by side pair of photos that illustrate the difference nicely. That this is what they wear to work does not automatically make it appropriate to display to small children in school. The kid whose mom brought this up? He was six. This isn't about teen sexuality, this is about small children having adult sexuality flaunted at them at a public school.
Tara Dresbach For me, it's the pro without context or prior knowledge. Also, if it somehow could have been a competitive cheerleading team that wasn't attached to to a pro sports franchise I would have felt better about it.
Lori L Foster A pro sports cheerleader is no more an athlete than a college athlete is a student. Their skills in those areas are irrelevant. As to the ballerina question: I've known a lot of (straight) men, and I never once heard one say of a ballerina, 'She's hot!' nor have I heard one praise the grace and skill of an NFL cheerleader.
Remington Stone The issue isn't even their professional uniforms, Suzi. Check the picture of the poster the kid brought home halfway down. That's a lot closer to underwear, to my eye.
Remington Stone On the other hand, don't even -say- gay in school. But highly heterosexualized mascots are all right?
[Deleted]
Kathleen Gabriel
Did you look at the poster that the first-grade boy was given? It was a bunch of grown women looking sexy and pulling at their clothes to display their boobs better. If my (fictional) first-grade daughter was visited by grown men who gave her a similar poster of those men looking all sexy and pulling at their shorts to give more attention to their junk, yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off.
It's not so much about the fact of cheerleading, but of marketing to elementary school kids in a sexual context.
J'Carlin @Suzi Re Ballet. Ballet is acknowledged to be the most demanding of sports but it is a celebration both of the human body and sensuality. If you appreciate an athletic body over boobs and cut pecs, ballet is the ultimate for any gender preference, on both sides of the pas de deux I might add.
J'Carlin @Suzi Re ? As noted different strokes for different folks. I find pseudo-warriors as bad as the cheerleaders. I would hope society has moved beyond this view of males and females. But as long as it is being celebrated by many groups the damning for control is necessary. Otherwise you are going to have a bunch of pregnant cheerleaders after every season.
Jack Pryne @Suzi- I cannot possibly express to you in words how appealing the right ballerina is.
Get Your NBA Cheerleader Out of My Kid’s School
blog.pigtailpals.com
Don’t try and tell me that I’m being uptight, or ashamed of the human form, or discriminating against women. What I’m doing is raising the bar, and demanding more. I refuse to settle for the patronizing, sexualized options offered to my daughter.
Tara Dresbach That's an interesting article. On the one hand, there is a push to get cheerleading to be considered a sport in it its own right. On the other hand, a visit from a pro sports team's cheerleading squad doesn't feel quite right.
J'Carlin While it may be true that sports/religious fanatics that dehumanize women should not be permitted to exist in a reasonable world, they do and there is nothing we can do about it. They outnumber us. As long as women of all ages are indoctrinated into being sex objects, what does it gain to prevent them from doing it as well as they can?
J'Carlin Reality check. What do you think of a ballerina?
Suzi Anvin carlin - have you ever LOOKED at a ballerina? I fear gay men are more likely to be attracted to the long, lank, smooth form than straight ones :-P OMG the muscles...
[deleted]
Suzi Anvin
question for you all.... OK would you consider it weird if male pro sports teams visited a high school to talk to promote athletes of their sport? or is it just cuz its cheerleaders? Double standard cuts both ways, both in the sexualizing, AND in the rampant DAMNING of the sexualizing that this response blatantly plays right into. "You have to be sexy but its WRONG BAD WRONG" is not the message we should be reinforcing. You really, truly, will NOT stop the first as long as teens have hormones, so reinforcing the second is really NOT helping...
Suzi Anvin that's their professional uniforms. Would you expect Olympic swimmers to not wear their speedos ever at a school?
Suzi Anvin what you're saying is 'oh, ew, cover up the form, its bad bad bad to be that sexy' the double standard is a real bitch to fight, exactly because it is a DOUBLE standard. its very hard to fight both halves at the same time.
Susie Rodriguez
This is not a case of athletes. There are cheerleaders who are athletes and these aren't them. These are essentially exotic dancers. If you read the article, toward the bottom is a side by side pair of photos that illustrate the difference nicely. That this is what they wear to work does not automatically make it appropriate to display to small children in school. The kid whose mom brought this up? He was six. This isn't about teen sexuality, this is about small children having adult sexuality flaunted at them at a public school.
Tara Dresbach For me, it's the pro without context or prior knowledge. Also, if it somehow could have been a competitive cheerleading team that wasn't attached to to a pro sports franchise I would have felt better about it.
Lori L Foster A pro sports cheerleader is no more an athlete than a college athlete is a student. Their skills in those areas are irrelevant. As to the ballerina question: I've known a lot of (straight) men, and I never once heard one say of a ballerina, 'She's hot!' nor have I heard one praise the grace and skill of an NFL cheerleader.
Remington Stone The issue isn't even their professional uniforms, Suzi. Check the picture of the poster the kid brought home halfway down. That's a lot closer to underwear, to my eye.
Remington Stone On the other hand, don't even -say- gay in school. But highly heterosexualized mascots are all right?
[Deleted]
Kathleen Gabriel
Did you look at the poster that the first-grade boy was given? It was a bunch of grown women looking sexy and pulling at their clothes to display their boobs better. If my (fictional) first-grade daughter was visited by grown men who gave her a similar poster of those men looking all sexy and pulling at their shorts to give more attention to their junk, yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off.
It's not so much about the fact of cheerleading, but of marketing to elementary school kids in a sexual context.
J'Carlin @Suzi Re Ballet. Ballet is acknowledged to be the most demanding of sports but it is a celebration both of the human body and sensuality. If you appreciate an athletic body over boobs and cut pecs, ballet is the ultimate for any gender preference, on both sides of the pas de deux I might add.
J'Carlin @Suzi Re ? As noted different strokes for different folks. I find pseudo-warriors as bad as the cheerleaders. I would hope society has moved beyond this view of males and females. But as long as it is being celebrated by many groups the damning for control is necessary. Otherwise you are going to have a bunch of pregnant cheerleaders after every season.
Jack Pryne @Suzi- I cannot possibly express to you in words how appealing the right ballerina is.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Memes in Evolution.
Is This Life All There Is?. - Beliefnet
While for 3.5 billion years, reproduction has been key and is still important in evolution, in the last 10,000 years of so Homo Sap has thrown an incredible wild card into the picture in the form of memes. Suddenly that moral element has become one of the most important determinants of survival for life on earth. The 'moral' failing of not getting along with the dominant humans is detrimental for survival as a species and as an individual I might add.
The human species is no exception. Morality, that is compliance with the mores of the tribe whatever that tribe is, is critical not only to survival as an individual but survival for the memes that might become part of the culture of the tribe. In a real sense the tribal memes are the modern mechanism of human evolution. The meme of divine right king led tribes is effectively dead, although the despot led tribal meme is unfortunately alive and well.
I suspect that in the lifetime of my grandchildren the religion meme will have disappeared, and certainly the trip-omni God gene associated with many religions. Out breeding resources is always a fatal mistake, although the death throes of that meme suicide are always ugly.
While for 3.5 billion years, reproduction has been key and is still important in evolution, in the last 10,000 years of so Homo Sap has thrown an incredible wild card into the picture in the form of memes. Suddenly that moral element has become one of the most important determinants of survival for life on earth. The 'moral' failing of not getting along with the dominant humans is detrimental for survival as a species and as an individual I might add.
The human species is no exception. Morality, that is compliance with the mores of the tribe whatever that tribe is, is critical not only to survival as an individual but survival for the memes that might become part of the culture of the tribe. In a real sense the tribal memes are the modern mechanism of human evolution. The meme of divine right king led tribes is effectively dead, although the despot led tribal meme is unfortunately alive and well.
I suspect that in the lifetime of my grandchildren the religion meme will have disappeared, and certainly the trip-omni God gene associated with many religions. Out breeding resources is always a fatal mistake, although the death throes of that meme suicide are always ugly.
Meaning, Purpose and the Afterlife
Is This Life All There Is?. - Beliefnet
Ain't no because. This is just flat wrong morally, factually, spiritually, and in the words of Fler0002
It sounds] like a plan that not only creates fears of what happens after death, but also creates in humanity fears of each other. Fears of any tolerance for anything other than what is sanctified by the church. Fears that turn into hatreds. Fears that turn into witch hunts. Fears that turn into jihads, crusades, and terrorism.
They will have been acutely aware of living, knowing each day that they are making differences in the lives of others. Major or minor, each difference reinforces their membership in that great and dominant species of humanity, which exists for the purpose of making a difference in the lives of other humans and indeed many other species on the planet. <
So what? Those people if they did their job as a human being well and influenced them properly and effectively will have continued their Legacy and built on all that is worth while in that legacy. They don't need to be remembered by name although some will be. But 'There is no limit to what you can accomplish if it doesn't matter who gets the credit.' Ralph Waldo Emerson, d. April 27, 1882. I am relatively certain that he did not consider this quote one of his major contributions to humanity. In fact it was buried until Truman resurrected it, or reinvented it. But please note that all the people who knew Emerson are now departed from the earth. But others who never knew him are still speaking good things about him.
Only a theist can assign zero value to purpose. If purpose comes from a non-existent or at least numinous and indefinable God it is no surprise believers assign zero value to the purpose of being human.
My purpose in life is far from zero. It is to make as much difference in the lives of other humans and others dependent on humans as possible. I am extremely careful to insure that the differences I am making are good for the individual and for the society of which I am a part. I may not always succeed, but I can normally repair the damage, and part of my purpose as a human is to do whatever it takes to do so.
They are called believers in the afterlife.
the meaning will vanish. the very moment the person dies. it will be as if they had never been on this earth because:
Aka_me
Ain't no because. This is just flat wrong morally, factually, spiritually, and in the words of Fler0002
It sounds] like a plan that not only creates fears of what happens after death, but also creates in humanity fears of each other. Fears of any tolerance for anything other than what is sanctified by the church. Fears that turn into hatreds. Fears that turn into witch hunts. Fears that turn into jihads, crusades, and terrorism.
1. they will have no awareness of having been on earth.
Aka_me
They will have been acutely aware of living, knowing each day that they are making differences in the lives of others. Major or minor, each difference reinforces their membership in that great and dominant species of humanity, which exists for the purpose of making a difference in the lives of other humans and indeed many other species on the planet. <
2. all people who ever knew them will eventually depart earth, leaving no one behind to 'speak good things about them.'
Aka_me
So what? Those people if they did their job as a human being well and influenced them properly and effectively will have continued their Legacy and built on all that is worth while in that legacy. They don't need to be remembered by name although some will be. But 'There is no limit to what you can accomplish if it doesn't matter who gets the credit.' Ralph Waldo Emerson, d. April 27, 1882. I am relatively certain that he did not consider this quote one of his major contributions to humanity. In fact it was buried until Truman resurrected it, or reinvented it. But please note that all the people who knew Emerson are now departed from the earth. But others who never knew him are still speaking good things about him.
meaning... getting up and going to work, does exist, albeit temporarily. so long as one does NOT contemplate purpose, ie why do I / everything exist.
the moment one assigns zero value to purpose, they run the risk of waking up to the fact that any answer they may have assigned to meaning...becomes worthless in the end.
Aka_me
Only a theist can assign zero value to purpose. If purpose comes from a non-existent or at least numinous and indefinable God it is no surprise believers assign zero value to the purpose of being human.
My purpose in life is far from zero. It is to make as much difference in the lives of other humans and others dependent on humans as possible. I am extremely careful to insure that the differences I am making are good for the individual and for the society of which I am a part. I may not always succeed, but I can normally repair the damage, and part of my purpose as a human is to do whatever it takes to do so.
and many people spend hurrendous amounts of energy trying NOT to have to admit this to themselves out of fear there is no value to anything.
Aka_me
They are called believers in the afterlife.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
What is Meaning?
Is This Life All There Is?. - Beliefnet
I have never been able to figure out what 'Meaning in Life' means to a Christian although it seems to be some desirable mystical attribute provided by God. One of those undefined 'Good things' that comes from God. Perhaps one of our Christian visitors can help.
I have appropriated the term, to describe those things that I do each day that make life better for those that are important to me including myself. Random acts of kindness, paying attention to a particularly nice piece of music on the stream in the background and commenting on it if appropriate to another who might appreciate it or to the performer if it was a live performance. Simply sharing the things big and little that make life worth getting out of bed for each morning for.
Meaning is not provided by anyone or anything, but is created by living intentionally with conscious intent to improve the overall welfare of whatever one considers to be one's tribe or Social Support Group. The importance of any specific act does not determine or create meaning, a simple 'Good job' to a deserving friend is essentially equivalent to an earthshaking policy speech. We can't expect all acts to be earthshakers, but we all can make life better for those around us. Therein lies meaning in life.
I have never been able to figure out what 'Meaning in Life' means to a Christian although it seems to be some desirable mystical attribute provided by God. One of those undefined 'Good things' that comes from God. Perhaps one of our Christian visitors can help.
I have appropriated the term, to describe those things that I do each day that make life better for those that are important to me including myself. Random acts of kindness, paying attention to a particularly nice piece of music on the stream in the background and commenting on it if appropriate to another who might appreciate it or to the performer if it was a live performance. Simply sharing the things big and little that make life worth getting out of bed for each morning for.
Meaning is not provided by anyone or anything, but is created by living intentionally with conscious intent to improve the overall welfare of whatever one considers to be one's tribe or Social Support Group. The importance of any specific act does not determine or create meaning, a simple 'Good job' to a deserving friend is essentially equivalent to an earthshaking policy speech. We can't expect all acts to be earthshakers, but we all can make life better for those around us. Therein lies meaning in life.
Monday, May 16, 2011
What is an Atheist?
..Pavlov and der Atheist... - Beliefnet
You are talking about at least three separate groups of people here with the term atheist.
Some atheists learn only that certain friends have some weird beliefs and do funny things with their families that they call religion. Other than a natural curiosity about things that are important to other people in the world, there is nothing to learn. Morality, meaning, purpose, etc. are found in the groups they grow up with and are absorbed just like the language and accent of their peers.
A second group of atheists have learned that their milk religion just doesn't work for them any more. They read their Bible or equivalent, they listen to the sermons, and the hymns and find they cannot relate to it any longer. Most leave their milk church and find other systems that work for them.
A third group resents the fact that God and the vuvuzela can tell them what to do and rebel. Their whole life revolves around this revolt and they spend no time trying to find something to replace God and the vuvuzela. Generally like most prodigals they return with their tail between their legs. While they called themselves atheists, they never learned what atheism was about other than denying God was watching.
You are talking about at least three separate groups of people here with the term atheist.
Some atheists learn only that certain friends have some weird beliefs and do funny things with their families that they call religion. Other than a natural curiosity about things that are important to other people in the world, there is nothing to learn. Morality, meaning, purpose, etc. are found in the groups they grow up with and are absorbed just like the language and accent of their peers.
A second group of atheists have learned that their milk religion just doesn't work for them any more. They read their Bible or equivalent, they listen to the sermons, and the hymns and find they cannot relate to it any longer. Most leave their milk church and find other systems that work for them.
A third group resents the fact that God and the vuvuzela can tell them what to do and rebel. Their whole life revolves around this revolt and they spend no time trying to find something to replace God and the vuvuzela. Generally like most prodigals they return with their tail between their legs. While they called themselves atheists, they never learned what atheism was about other than denying God was watching.
Tribalism
Is This Life All There Is?. - Beliefnet
As intelligent social animals I would argue that the basic human evolutionary unit is the tribe. Larger than a relationship clan but small enough that all members have a 'nodding acquaintance or potentially so. The tribe sets the mores, creates the Gods, and establishes the membership rules. And historically, establishes other. Gods allow the tribe to exceed the acquaintance limitation, as all tribal members worship God as the unifying entity. And use the rituals as the unifying principles. As long as communication was controlled by the priesthood, this worked well, although resource conflicts with the others were always an issue.
Gutenberg, laid the groundwork for the disintegration of the tribe, and humans have basically tried to find a substitute since. Nations, Religions, and Ethnic groups have all in one way or another tried to replace the tribe, and it seems we are still working out the solution. It is as the Chinese Edit: proverb curse notes 'Interesting times.
As intelligent social animals I would argue that the basic human evolutionary unit is the tribe. Larger than a relationship clan but small enough that all members have a 'nodding acquaintance or potentially so. The tribe sets the mores, creates the Gods, and establishes the membership rules. And historically, establishes other. Gods allow the tribe to exceed the acquaintance limitation, as all tribal members worship God as the unifying entity. And use the rituals as the unifying principles. As long as communication was controlled by the priesthood, this worked well, although resource conflicts with the others were always an issue.
Gutenberg, laid the groundwork for the disintegration of the tribe, and humans have basically tried to find a substitute since. Nations, Religions, and Ethnic groups have all in one way or another tried to replace the tribe, and it seems we are still working out the solution. It is as the Chinese Edit: proverb curse notes 'Interesting times.
Is This Life all there is?
I live as if it is. There is not enough evidence for an afterlife to even be agnostic, but in any event even an improbable God as afterlife concierge would have to base a decision on the life lived between birth and death to be worth paying any attention to. Below we have one take on the issue, thanks Aka_me. It almost sounds reasonable but still is a distraction from the important task of living. But if the principles that get you the cookie result in a good life for self and all others, I have no argument.
40 years of making life a little better for those who are important in my life. Each day I do what I can to make myself and others around me a little wiser, more compassionate, and more willing to share our gifts with the living, and to share the gifts from the deceased with the living. The Mozart sonata is relevant here, but so are the lullabies composed by my atheist great-grandmother that are still lulling generations of children into pleasant, hopeful sleep, secure in the love of their parents who will be there for the next 40 years.
Exactly the point. I not only have the memory but I can encourage others to share the experience at a later performance. Or if push comes to shove I can buy (not rip) a recording and share that. I was at a stunning concert just last night with an unusual combination of chamber singers with a string quartet. Three commissioned works and two works rescued from the ignore pile by Brahms and Beethoven and adapted for the combo. I have already promoted several copies of the planned CD and ordered one for myself. They made a huge difference, and I certainly hope they will be around for another 40 years, doing innovative things with the human voice.
As for the crappy hypothetical. I paid almost that in current $ to hear Messiaen play Méditations sur le mystère de la Sainte Trinité at the National Cathedral. The experience itself was transcendent and was priceless. I cannot remember it well in the sense of which note came after which, and the experience was entirely in the moment. There was in fact nothing left after the silence at the end.
I am not so egocentric that value to me is the most important thing or even an important thing. What is important is how I affect the others that are important to me.
Take for example Socrates, not comparing myself mind you, just using a famous example. He certainly is worthless to himself right now. He had no illusions of an afterlife. But he affected students and one, Plato, was affected enough to document how he affected those students. Socrates is still one of the most important people in a philosophical discussion.
While the children and grandchildren are important, the fact that they look like me is of no importance. The fact that they think like me, love like me, make music like me and thousands of other ways are like me is what is important. And there are others, who don't look like me that in some measure think like me, love like me, make music like me and in thousands of other ways reflect my influence on them.
This is my legacy, at some point I won't be around to enjoy it but I rest assured each night that it will be carried on and enjoyed. Some who carry parts of it on don't even know where it came from. That bothers me not a whit. If their lives are better for it I did not live in vain.
when this life IS all there is...what is the difference between dieing today and dieing 40 years from now?
Aka_me
40 years of making life a little better for those who are important in my life. Each day I do what I can to make myself and others around me a little wiser, more compassionate, and more willing to share our gifts with the living, and to share the gifts from the deceased with the living. The Mozart sonata is relevant here, but so are the lullabies composed by my atheist great-grandmother that are still lulling generations of children into pleasant, hopeful sleep, secure in the love of their parents who will be there for the next 40 years.
Exactly the point. I not only have the memory but I can encourage others to share the experience at a later performance. Or if push comes to shove I can buy (not rip) a recording and share that. I was at a stunning concert just last night with an unusual combination of chamber singers with a string quartet. Three commissioned works and two works rescued from the ignore pile by Brahms and Beethoven and adapted for the combo. I have already promoted several copies of the planned CD and ordered one for myself. They made a huge difference, and I certainly hope they will be around for another 40 years, doing innovative things with the human voice.
As for the crappy hypothetical. I paid almost that in current $ to hear Messiaen play Méditations sur le mystère de la Sainte Trinité at the National Cathedral. The experience itself was transcendent and was priceless. I cannot remember it well in the sense of which note came after which, and the experience was entirely in the moment. There was in fact nothing left after the silence at the end.
I am not so egocentric that value to me is the most important thing or even an important thing. What is important is how I affect the others that are important to me.
Take for example Socrates, not comparing myself mind you, just using a famous example. He certainly is worthless to himself right now. He had no illusions of an afterlife. But he affected students and one, Plato, was affected enough to document how he affected those students. Socrates is still one of the most important people in a philosophical discussion.
While the children and grandchildren are important, the fact that they look like me is of no importance. The fact that they think like me, love like me, make music like me and thousands of other ways are like me is what is important. And there are others, who don't look like me that in some measure think like me, love like me, make music like me and in thousands of other ways reflect my influence on them.
This is my legacy, at some point I won't be around to enjoy it but I rest assured each night that it will be carried on and enjoyed. Some who carry parts of it on don't even know where it came from. That bothers me not a whit. If their lives are better for it I did not live in vain.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Moral Evil
....Athiest, never dear... - Beliefnet
You went a few words too far. Slavery was abolished because it was a moral evil. Moral evil. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. A very few religious people saw through the biblical blessings justifying slavery and recognized it for the moral evil it was. It never was or could be considered a sin under any biblical or Christian definition of sin.
Sin is a Christian concept involving a human relationship to God. It has nothing to do with human relationships with each other which are covered by the concept of morality not sin. Any person who does not accept Paul's rants about sin cannot sin. According to Paul in Romans 1:18-23 humans although they knew God they glorified Him not as God. ...and for this cause God gave them up to vile afflictions, that is made them sin. If they knew not God they could not sin. They could be immoral, as immorality is a hateful act or even a hateful statement against another human. Whether it is sin or not makes no difference.
May 7, 2011 -- 2:24PM, wrote:
You went a few words too far. Slavery was abolished because it was a moral evil. Moral evil. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. A very few religious people saw through the biblical blessings justifying slavery and recognized it for the moral evil it was. It never was or could be considered a sin under any biblical or Christian definition of sin.
Sin is a Christian concept involving a human relationship to God. It has nothing to do with human relationships with each other which are covered by the concept of morality not sin. Any person who does not accept Paul's rants about sin cannot sin. According to Paul in Romans 1:18-23 humans although they knew God they glorified Him not as God. ...and for this cause God gave them up to vile afflictions, that is made them sin. If they knew not God they could not sin. They could be immoral, as immorality is a hateful act or even a hateful statement against another human. Whether it is sin or not makes no difference.
May 7, 2011 -- 2:24PM, wrote:
remember too it was the Church first in England through the leadership of Wilberforce that abolished Slavery there, then here in America here too through the spark ignited by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Toms Cabin. Slavery was abolished because it was a moral evil it was saw for what it was --------> Sin
Atheism, among those who know is a sinful condition.
Leight
Saturday, April 30, 2011
On the Internet
atheism is NOT a "worldview" - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community
One of the glories of the internet is that everybody is free to post anything they want to even if it gives them and those they pretend to represent a very bad name. On this very blog you can see that exhibited frequently. The trick is to pick your arguments carefully lest you fall into the trap 'Don't argue with an idiot. Hesh will drag you down to herm level then beat you with experience.' This is true all over the internet.
But please, here and all over the internet, no one speaks for any group, no matter how loudly they shout 'I AM AN IDIOT,' they don't even speak for idiots.
One of the glories of the internet is that everybody is free to post anything they want to even if it gives them and those they pretend to represent a very bad name. On this very blog you can see that exhibited frequently. The trick is to pick your arguments carefully lest you fall into the trap 'Don't argue with an idiot. Hesh will drag you down to herm level then beat you with experience.' This is true all over the internet.
But please, here and all over the internet, no one speaks for any group, no matter how loudly they shout 'I AM AN IDIOT,' they don't even speak for idiots.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Tribal Moral Law
atheism is NOT a "worldview" - Beliefnet
All moral law is ultimately the mores of the tribe. That which allows the face group of the tribe to function. The tribe may adopt a moral law giver in the form of a shaman or imaginary super shaman, but either will of necessity codify the mores of the tribe: Be nice to members of the tribe, protect the children of the tribe, respect the leaders of the tribe and protect the traditions and lore of the tribe.
In the modern world tribes are larger than a face group, and dispersed among other tribes in the society, but have common tribal values. Some are built around a religious tradition, others are built around business traditions, and another is based around the traditions of the university community. The university communities are typically split into the scholars and the warriors, and loyalties to each group carry beyond the campus with the warriors transferring loyalties to professional warrior teams, either sport or military.
The above is grossly stereotyped of necessity, there are major differences within each 'tribe.' Religious groups in particular are split into smaller and smaller groups some as small as a parish, each with its own mores and most with it's own higher moral law giver providing an absolute higher moral law for the tribe. Of course it is too much to expect that these absolute higher moral law agree on much of anything except that they are right and all the other absolute higher moral law givers are wrong.
It should be noted that there are atheists in most of the tribes, and the atheists generally adopt the world view of the tribe with the exception that the absolute higher moral law giver, if there is one, is an imaginary myth.
All moral law is ultimately the mores of the tribe. That which allows the face group of the tribe to function. The tribe may adopt a moral law giver in the form of a shaman or imaginary super shaman, but either will of necessity codify the mores of the tribe: Be nice to members of the tribe, protect the children of the tribe, respect the leaders of the tribe and protect the traditions and lore of the tribe.
In the modern world tribes are larger than a face group, and dispersed among other tribes in the society, but have common tribal values. Some are built around a religious tradition, others are built around business traditions, and another is based around the traditions of the university community. The university communities are typically split into the scholars and the warriors, and loyalties to each group carry beyond the campus with the warriors transferring loyalties to professional warrior teams, either sport or military.
The above is grossly stereotyped of necessity, there are major differences within each 'tribe.' Religious groups in particular are split into smaller and smaller groups some as small as a parish, each with its own mores and most with it's own higher moral law giver providing an absolute higher moral law for the tribe. Of course it is too much to expect that these absolute higher moral law agree on much of anything except that they are right and all the other absolute higher moral law givers are wrong.
It should be noted that there are atheists in most of the tribes, and the atheists generally adopt the world view of the tribe with the exception that the absolute higher moral law giver, if there is one, is an imaginary myth.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Harry Jesus Christ Potter
The bulk of Jesus Potter Harry Christ is a well researched and readable source for the mythical (literary) underpinnings of the figure of Jesus Christ in the mythology of Christianity. Which author Derek Murphy argues should be seen as a literary myth rather than a historical preacher who walked the earth and died in a spectacular fashion. He argues convincingly that the existence of a historical Jesus destroys the mythical basis of Christianity. (Not a bad idea in this atheist's opinion. For my take on the historical Jesus see Jesuism posts on this blog.) Murphy argues that the myth that grew out of the historical mythology that is well documented in the book is the real Jesus Christ of the Christian faith not the historical Jesus.
In the summary he draws the parallel between the nascent Harry Potter cult and the development of Christianity built on the mythical underpinnings of the Christian religion. I for one would like to see the sequel where he documents the humanist mythology underlying the Harry Potter myth. Christianity is passe.
In the summary he draws the parallel between the nascent Harry Potter cult and the development of Christianity built on the mythical underpinnings of the Christian religion. I for one would like to see the sequel where he documents the humanist mythology underlying the Harry Potter myth. Christianity is passe.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Origin Stories
Science vs. Religion - Science & Religion - Beliefnet Community
There is overwhelming evidence that all gods including God came from tribal stories to explain the unexplainable at the time, including the origins of people and things and by extension the universe. These tribal stories ultimately came from the minds of people, who pre-existed the stories. Since these people presumably had something to sit on while telling their stories, the universe, technically ebergy/mass must be the bottom turtle.
There is overwhelming evidence that all gods including God came from tribal stories to explain the unexplainable at the time, including the origins of people and things and by extension the universe. These tribal stories ultimately came from the minds of people, who pre-existed the stories. Since these people presumably had something to sit on while telling their stories, the universe, technically ebergy/mass must be the bottom turtle.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Morals of the Tribe.
The 'existence' of gods - Beliefnet
They both are talking about morality. The real issue is where Ken gets his preferences and cptpith gets his empathy basis for good and evil. And for that matter where you get your 'God says'
Humans are basically tribal animals. Tribes these days are distributed in the larger society. But within the tribe morality, that is, what is right and wrong is as rigid and strict as the 10 Commandments, although less frequently violated. 'Aunt Matilda' tells mom and dad which fork to use, who may screw whom, and who may own whom, and all of the other rights and wrongs of the tribe. Mom and Dad in turn make sure the children from the time they are old enough to play with other children internalize these rules with their pablum. 'Aunt Matilda' has lots of help, other relatives, teachers, mentors, authority figures all play a role in defining right and wrong for the tribe.
Your tribe throws God into the mix, but in general God's moral precepts are so archaic that even the most devout must pick and choose among them and interpret the ones they choose so heavily that in effect God's morality is the believer's personal preferences just like Ken's. I would bet that Ken's preferences are based on a modern educated tribe's morality, and that in fact they are more rigid than a believer's.
If the believer has chosen only the Second Great Commandment and discarded all the rest of the archaic moral precepts, they don't have much of an argument with cptpith, except maybe that God said so rather than the tribe dictates.
They both are talking about morality. The real issue is where Ken gets his preferences and cptpith gets his empathy basis for good and evil. And for that matter where you get your 'God says'
Humans are basically tribal animals. Tribes these days are distributed in the larger society. But within the tribe morality, that is, what is right and wrong is as rigid and strict as the 10 Commandments, although less frequently violated. 'Aunt Matilda' tells mom and dad which fork to use, who may screw whom, and who may own whom, and all of the other rights and wrongs of the tribe. Mom and Dad in turn make sure the children from the time they are old enough to play with other children internalize these rules with their pablum. 'Aunt Matilda' has lots of help, other relatives, teachers, mentors, authority figures all play a role in defining right and wrong for the tribe.
Your tribe throws God into the mix, but in general God's moral precepts are so archaic that even the most devout must pick and choose among them and interpret the ones they choose so heavily that in effect God's morality is the believer's personal preferences just like Ken's. I would bet that Ken's preferences are based on a modern educated tribe's morality, and that in fact they are more rigid than a believer's.
If the believer has chosen only the Second Great Commandment and discarded all the rest of the archaic moral precepts, they don't have much of an argument with cptpith, except maybe that God said so rather than the tribe dictates.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Gil Robbins, Vocal Musician
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/arts/music/10robbins.html
Gil's love for and dedication to vocal music of all kinds made a profound difference in the the many different genres he touched. As a singer, a conductor, or even as a club manger he changed everything and made it much better. It was a pleasure an privilege to have known and worked with him. Condolences to Mary and the wonderful family they raised.
However...every time I touch my lip to catch a breath in a fast passage I remember Gil and all the other things he taught me about how to be a better singer. And that leads to Mary and the family in the apartment in the village going over Choral Society business. All good memories that will be around as long as I am, and as long as anyone touched by Gil's genius is around.
Just 12 days later Mary joined him. Loving memories washed with tears will always be a part of their legacy to all choral singers, but especially to the New York Choral Society. Thanks Mary and Gil for all the joy and music you gave us.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Spiritual But Not Religious
Dawkins' chapter 8 - Beliefnet
For more years than I like to think about I have been trying to find a word or even a short phrase to substitute for spiritual, as well as a word that I can nail on a theist that means spirituality attributed to God. I have failed.
I finally found a God specific substitute for transcendent in "numinous" thanks to Rudolf Otto.
But I haven't yet found a word that I can say "You mean ..." when a theist uses spirit or spiritual. So I am left with accusing God of hijacking a profound human experience and generally turning it into crap. "Hey, look at the rainbow!" "That is God's promise that he isn't going to kill us all again." I am not impressed, I will enjoy the rainbow without the help of God.
I think the world is making progress in taking spiritual back for human experience, just as we have reclaimed soul from God. I am pleased that it is now referring to human experiences.
I always congratulate a person who claims to be spiritual but not religious. If they ask why I suggest that they have reclaimed their humanity from God's playpen. More than a few have thanked me for expressing their thinking so concisely. I once heard an echo, always a nice experience or should I say a spiritual experience.
For more years than I like to think about I have been trying to find a word or even a short phrase to substitute for spiritual, as well as a word that I can nail on a theist that means spirituality attributed to God. I have failed.
I finally found a God specific substitute for transcendent in "numinous" thanks to Rudolf Otto.
But I haven't yet found a word that I can say "You mean ..." when a theist uses spirit or spiritual. So I am left with accusing God of hijacking a profound human experience and generally turning it into crap. "Hey, look at the rainbow!" "That is God's promise that he isn't going to kill us all again." I am not impressed, I will enjoy the rainbow without the help of God.
I think the world is making progress in taking spiritual back for human experience, just as we have reclaimed soul from God. I am pleased that it is now referring to human experiences.
I always congratulate a person who claims to be spiritual but not religious. If they ask why I suggest that they have reclaimed their humanity from God's playpen. More than a few have thanked me for expressing their thinking so concisely. I once heard an echo, always a nice experience or should I say a spiritual experience.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Natural Spirituality
Dawkins' chapter 8 - Beliefnet Community
For political reasons you don't call it spirituality, but I suspect that there is more to your life than the material/intellectual inputs. Awe, wonder, love, hate, beauty, are all values that I call spiritual, in that they inform the non-rational component of the mind that I call spirit. Just to be clear spirit is not put into the mind/brain by some God or other external force but is an integral part of it. Religions try to hijack spirituality just like they try to hijack morality, but there is no need to let them do so. I would like to find other words for spirit and spirituality, as I don't like the religious overtones, but like morality, there just isn't a secular concept that does the job. We will just have to reclaim them from religion.
For political reasons you don't call it spirituality, but I suspect that there is more to your life than the material/intellectual inputs. Awe, wonder, love, hate, beauty, are all values that I call spiritual, in that they inform the non-rational component of the mind that I call spirit. Just to be clear spirit is not put into the mind/brain by some God or other external force but is an integral part of it. Religions try to hijack spirituality just like they try to hijack morality, but there is no need to let them do so. I would like to find other words for spirit and spirituality, as I don't like the religious overtones, but like morality, there just isn't a secular concept that does the job. We will just have to reclaim them from religion.
Spiritual Truth
Dawkins' chapter 8 - Beliefnet
When you let the material/worldly override truth, it is spiritual suicide. Spirituality is as necessary for human survival as eating and pooping. Spirituality is the function of the mind that is the reward center for discovering exceptional beauty, truth, relationships, and emotional truth. In a spiritual experience all mental activity is subsumed to the importance of the moment, and the truth contained therein.
Spirituality is not necessarily the province of religion, but religion can be a cliff notes version of spirituality for those who cannot or will not do the study and introspection necessary for personal spiritual truth. Religion does not prevent and in fact encourages the study and introspection but many ignore it and let theology override spiritual truth.
When you let the material/worldly override truth, it is spiritual suicide. Spirituality is as necessary for human survival as eating and pooping. Spirituality is the function of the mind that is the reward center for discovering exceptional beauty, truth, relationships, and emotional truth. In a spiritual experience all mental activity is subsumed to the importance of the moment, and the truth contained therein.
Spirituality is not necessarily the province of religion, but religion can be a cliff notes version of spirituality for those who cannot or will not do the study and introspection necessary for personal spiritual truth. Religion does not prevent and in fact encourages the study and introspection but many ignore it and let theology override spiritual truth.
The Tribe as the Human Evolutionary Unit.
What is the Purpose of Religion? - Beliefnet
As the human evolutionary selection unit is the tribe, as long as tribes were small enough and cohesive, a god was a useful entity to take the responsibility of leadership from the tribal leaders. 'Hey, it isn't me making bad things happen, it is God. I only take credit for the good things that happen.' Religion codifies the social necessities of tribal cohesion, providing the moral and social rules that allow the tribe to function. Another important function of religion is to codify and preserve the stories that transmit those moral and social rules. Humans are story telling animals and the stories told in the gatherings are the way the mores are transmitted and preserved.
As the human evolutionary selection unit is the tribe, as long as tribes were small enough and cohesive, a god was a useful entity to take the responsibility of leadership from the tribal leaders. 'Hey, it isn't me making bad things happen, it is God. I only take credit for the good things that happen.' Religion codifies the social necessities of tribal cohesion, providing the moral and social rules that allow the tribe to function. Another important function of religion is to codify and preserve the stories that transmit those moral and social rules. Humans are story telling animals and the stories told in the gatherings are the way the mores are transmitted and preserved.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
HUAC History and Religion
"In God We Trust" nation’s official motto? - Beliefnet
The traditional but not official motto was 'E Pluribus Unum' Out of many, one. The problem with this motto was that it might have been interpreted to refer to the ethnically diverse population of the country including many that were not Christian or white. So they fixed it by adopting a motto that included the Christian God so no one would be confused in what the country stood for.
The original Pledge 'One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' had the same problem. The disenfranchised and the minorities might have mistakenly been included in the liberty and justice phrase so they added 'Under God' so that only those believing in God would have liberty and justice.
In those days the House Unamerican Activities Committee HUAC was synonymous with bigotry. The Hollywood Blacklist was aimed at atheists and Jews who might have had some concern for the downtrodden and celebrated them with movies and folk songs. Even then it might have been politically incorrect to pick on Jews so Communist was added to Godless that is, not believing in the Christian God, so that GodlessCommunist, or GodlessCommieAtheist became one word for political reasons.
I say those days as if they were over. They are not. Although HUAC was discredited the Christian Right simply continued where they left off.
Yeah, it worked by destroying the cultural diversity that made America Great. It worked by denying some of the nations best and brightest a living by a Christian witch hunt for "godless communists" It worked by destroying an educational system that was the envy of the world by making students and teachers no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof, pledge allegiance to God instead of "One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" no matter what religious beliefs they held or did not hold. Instead of "E Pluribus Unum," out of many, one, we get "In God We Trust" fuck everybody else.
The entire decline of the United States can be traced to the fight against "Godless Communism." Korea, Viet Nam, the cold war, the Bamboo Curtain, a resource suck that took many of our finest men and either killed them or turned them into PTS dysfunctionals. I can justifiably add Iraq I and II to the list, as Communism was just a modifier to Godless. And you can be sure that the God in question was the Christian God.
Yeah, it worked. Maybe we can get Jesusland to secede and let the rest of us who do not trust in God try to rebuild the USA with the original E Pluribus Unum motto.
On second thought why wait for them. They are too retarded to accomplish anything so beneficial. Why not have the educated rational states secede and either join Canada which already has a functional government, or recreate that country that was based on E Pluribus Unum instead of God.
The traditional but not official motto was 'E Pluribus Unum' Out of many, one. The problem with this motto was that it might have been interpreted to refer to the ethnically diverse population of the country including many that were not Christian or white. So they fixed it by adopting a motto that included the Christian God so no one would be confused in what the country stood for.
The original Pledge 'One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' had the same problem. The disenfranchised and the minorities might have mistakenly been included in the liberty and justice phrase so they added 'Under God' so that only those believing in God would have liberty and justice.
In those days the House Unamerican Activities Committee HUAC was synonymous with bigotry. The Hollywood Blacklist was aimed at atheists and Jews who might have had some concern for the downtrodden and celebrated them with movies and folk songs. Even then it might have been politically incorrect to pick on Jews so Communist was added to Godless that is, not believing in the Christian God, so that GodlessCommunist, or GodlessCommieAtheist became one word for political reasons.
I say those days as if they were over. They are not. Although HUAC was discredited the Christian Right simply continued where they left off.
Yeah, it worked by destroying the cultural diversity that made America Great. It worked by denying some of the nations best and brightest a living by a Christian witch hunt for "godless communists" It worked by destroying an educational system that was the envy of the world by making students and teachers no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof, pledge allegiance to God instead of "One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" no matter what religious beliefs they held or did not hold. Instead of "E Pluribus Unum," out of many, one, we get "In God We Trust" fuck everybody else.
The entire decline of the United States can be traced to the fight against "Godless Communism." Korea, Viet Nam, the cold war, the Bamboo Curtain, a resource suck that took many of our finest men and either killed them or turned them into PTS dysfunctionals. I can justifiably add Iraq I and II to the list, as Communism was just a modifier to Godless. And you can be sure that the God in question was the Christian God.
Yeah, it worked. Maybe we can get Jesusland to secede and let the rest of us who do not trust in God try to rebuild the USA with the original E Pluribus Unum motto.
On second thought why wait for them. They are too retarded to accomplish anything so beneficial. Why not have the educated rational states secede and either join Canada which already has a functional government, or recreate that country that was based on E Pluribus Unum instead of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)