Science as a Bridge to God

The blue roads of thinking: The Human Condition:

To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing.
Simone Weil

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

J'C: So we come full circle. To restore to science its destiny as a bridge leading toward God it must be purged of that religious view of humans as God's failure to create, at the very least, a species with no need for a re-birth mediated by religion but fully capable of themselves awakening the supernatural connection to God. All scientists I know who have made this connection, and they are many as I tend to live in a science dominated world, see their mission in science not as saving their souls, but to discover the world God has created with themselves as an integral part of it along with all other humans. They have purged themselves of the need for consolation or salvation of their religion and have made that direct empowering connection to God. Most Christian scientists have done this by a return to the Synoptics and the empowering first Commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." [Emphasis mine.] There is no room in that commandment for consolation or salvation.

The Purpose of Life

The blue roads of thinking: Is atheism compatible with God?: Comments: December 28, 2009 5:17 PM

J'C; ...Plus 5 for Fulghum, and 5 more for All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.
I haven't found a God that can help any more than that.

EI: The 'points' should be yours; yours is the brilliant mind that recognized the value of Fulgham's ideas and pointed me toward him; I was just following your lead.

Thank You,

J'C: Fulghum is one of those rare people who speak profoundly in words we all can understand, and even get a chuckle out of if we can restrain ourselves from ROFL.

I get no points for having been introduced to his work, or introducing others. It is simply a necessity in the purpose of my life.

The Human Condition

The blue roads of thinking: Is atheism compatible with God?:

The human condition is such that we are incapable without the help of grace of coming to objectively experience the human condition in order to reconcile it. Our defense mechanisms are too strong.
Nick A

J'C: Perhaps a good Apologetic, but certainly not a general statement about the human condition. Many humans think of the East Asians as an example do very will objectively experiencing the human condition without Grace. Some use various forms of meditation as a way to focus on the human condition, and rid themselves of the defense mechanisms but it is done without external help. Many well educated westerners particularly those without a strong indoctrination for dependence on God are able to experience the human condition, objectively, subjectively, or spiritually without the need for grace from God or other. I am well studied in the human condition, not because grace showed me the way, but because I was indoctrinated to be aware of it from my earliest conscious moments.

Each religion is alone true.

The blue roads of thinking: Materialism and God:

Each religion is alone true, that is to say, that at the moment we are thinking of it we must bring as much attention to bear on it as if there were nothing else...A 'synthesis' of religion implies a lower quality of attention.
Simone Weil

C'J: In a long lifetime of studying, and learning from religions, it is necessary to suspend disbelief to this extent to get anything from them. When I am singing a Mass it it impossible to do it right or learn from the experience if there are any reservations about God or the belief set you are singing about.
One of the reasons I do not attempt to build a coherent whole from what I learn is that not only are they alone true, they are also alone false. I suspect that if any had been true in the sense of having a true connection to God, I would have by now found God. Unlike Simone, the fact that all religions are alone false led me not to God but to a cosmopolitan understanding of morality, meaning and purpose in life.

What is Science?

If science is based on process and obscured with unfamiliar words, it nonetheless grew out of a fundamentally human, childlike curiosity. What makes the sky blue, why does ice float, what is "blood," how does the mind work? What child fails to ask those questions? What child fails to draw what she sees, or sing what he knows.
Jon Franklin, The Wolf in the Parlor, 2009. p.3.

In fifty-eight words he has explained to everyone what scientists have been trying to tell as long as scientists have been doing science, and everybody else has been asking WTF are you guys doing? Just brilliant.

Is atheism compatible with God?

The blue roads of thinking: Materialism and God:

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Nick A.: This is far easier for me to accept since I've experienced a bit of this transition. Yet I am interested how you and other atheists would react to her observation.

Is it difficult for an atheist to be open to the possibility that something has not opened in them as of yet to experience the real meaning of the essence of religion? Does it seem too elitist to consider? Yet IMO the atheist is quite right to react to the imagination of those who call themselves religious. Atheism then is a necessary purification."

J'C: Perhaps the purification Weil is talking about is the purification from the religious intercession between believers and God. A major cause of atheism is really paying attention to the religious teachings of the major religions and then committing the mortal sin of thinking about them. At that point the only thing left for those needing God is a direct personal relationship with God unmediated by religion. I think this is what Weil is talking about.

There are many people who are overwhelmed by the challenges of life and find the need for God either directly as the mystics strive for, or mediated by religions. Others of us see the challenges as just that, obstacles to overcome. Including the huge challenge of inevitable death. If an individual is unable to cope, that yearning for God gives an escape. I suspect most atheists are past that. I know I have examined many of the religious avenues of escape and found none including direct relationship with God that worked for me. This is not a rejection of religion. I have learned much about living and dying from religion. It is just a celebration of my human yearning for interdependence only with other humans. There is no part of my life that I feel a need to cede to God.

Timshel

Is atheism a belief system? - Beliefnet

I have no beliefs. Belief gets in the way of learning.
Lazarus Long: Time Enough For Love, Robert A Heinlein, 1973 p20.

J'C "This policy has served me well since I adopted it shortly after the book came out."

MANY People of VARIOUS 'Faith' Communities
endorse/embrace one or more
'Sacred Texts' ...
teilhard

J'C: "I will readily admit I have learned more about living from avowedly fictional texts 'This is a work of fiction, any resemblance to actual persons or places is purely coincidental' usually by atheist authors than I have ever learned from 'Sacred Texts' or Liturgies or Creeds which I have studied extensively. The quote itself makes the thought of Time Enough For Love or any other fiction as something to believe in an oxymoron."

J'C: I think the difference is, from another of my fictional reread texts East of Eden, Steinbeck, is that Sacred Texts say "Thou Must" and the fiction says "Thou Mayest." Steinbeck was wrestling with the story of Cain and God's command "Timshel" usually translated as Thou Shalt (triumph over sin,) occasionally as "Thou must." "Timshel" take control over your behavior, take responsibility for your actions, especially your sins, and you may become a better person because of the learning experience and triumph over the mistakes you have made.

Materialism and God

God and Consciousness - Beliefnet

Reality is anchored by a principle known as The Primacy of Existence; “Something that has objective existence in Reality exists independent of any observation.” This is quite obviously a materialistic notion and I also believe this idea is the key to most objections to Materialism. The wish that things having subjective existence could somehow be or become things having objective existence is one of the mantras of the “A-Materialist.”
exploringinside

J'C: "The only problem I have with materialism and the Primacy of Existence is, as I told Blü on a different thread, that it is boring. I have no interest at all in the subjective having an objective existence. I am quite happy with it being subjective. Art, music, fiction, myths, gods, and rituals all mean exactly nothing to the materialist since they admittedly exist only in the minds of those that can understand them. Each understanding of the subjective entity is subtly or grossly different, but people can agree on some of the important features of the entity. God may be supernatural, natural, imaginary, or a delusion in rare cases, but it is at the very least something that someone, lets call them a believer, finds to be important in their lives. One can argue all night that God has no material existence. (Not with me. I stipulate it in the first few seconds and everybody gets pissed. The materialists go off and rub the belly of the material Buddha, and the Buddhists go off in another corner to discuss the issue of non-material suffering. I go read a novel.) I find it much more interesting to find out why an intelligent, rational person can and does find God to be important in their lives."

A tree falls in the forest. Who cares whether or not the compression waves in the atmosphere qualify as noise or not. It just doesn't matter. I think this was ultimately my problem with Chemistry which was my boyhood choice of a career that lasted through my Sophomore year in college. I just couldn't get worked up about how a rocket went up. It was much more fun to deal with the absolutely subjective and political issues of getting someone to buy it so it could go up. If a car salesman thinks hesh is selling a material object, hesh had better find a job in a factory building cars. What heah is selling is prestige, practicality, social status, or political correctness. They all work to move the iron. Some of the worst salespeople are materialists, they try to sell the technology, the intercooler, and the V4. They might as well try to sell the frame. It does not work.

The Creation of Eve

The birth of Eve - Beliefnet:

"Agnostic wrote:

You're absolutely right. Clearly Eve was a divine creation, separate from Adam. Eve was created in the divine image of God Herself. In contrast, Adam evolved from primates with lower intelligence. It should be obvious that women are innately superior to males.

The Bible shows this. The very name for 'the Lord' is Yahvah. Eve in Hebrew is Chavah. If you look at the original Hebrew letters, they are even more nearly identical.

Each time a female is born, it is another divine creation. Males, on the other hand, bear far too much similarity to apes of lesser intelligence. It should be obvious.

The Genesis story shows God leading the animals and beasts to Adam for a potential mate, because Adam was just an animal. Adam almost chose a dog for a mate. But God, in Her infinite wisdom, realized Adam was not capable of living without divine help, so God gave a replica of Herself to watch over Adam.

This is clear from the Hebrew word, usually translated as 'help mate' It is 'Ezer,' a word which does mean help. But in the Bible, it only appears as a term for God Herself, or for Eve. David says, 'God is my Help (Ezer)' Eve, the Woman, was Adam's Help (Ezer). It was Adam who needed help, divine assistance. Eve was provided. She did not evolve. She had a separate divine creation.

Scientists generally are correct. Adam evolved. But religion is also correct, Eve was a Divine Creation. All the violence is the world is caused by men, who have barely evolved past their lower primate origins. Even with divine assistance from women, they often are unable to advance beyond their atavistic nature."

J'C: In light of Harold Bloom's theory that "J" was a woman, the irony in Genesis 2 is, with this post, beautifully explained.

Procreative vs recreational sex

Gender roles, family, God and Atheism - Beliefnet

Do you think there might be a biological advantage to having two parents that actually 'make love'? As opposed a family where the woman gets raped on a weekly basis? [...]I have six children. And we would have had more if I were up to it. [...] This happened because I sacrificed my life for my family and children.
Now does it bother me that they [atheists] much prefer recreational sex to procreational sex. [...]
Godman

J'C: "It would seem that parents that make love is almost a evolutionary necessity for a stable family and properly nurtured children. Which is why I object to the common religious edict that sex should not be making love it should be making children. The number of children resulting from that lovemaking should be a choice not chance, as you point out. You sacrificed your life for your family, which is a reasonable choice that I respect if your wife agreed with sacrificing her non-family contribution to society, I assume she did not work other than at home and family, and your sacrifice was the entire material support for the family.

Others may make a different choice, considering the overpopulation of the planet, that would be to combine recreational sex (I certainly hope you didn't deprive your wife of that when conception was not intended) with reproductive sex only for replacement levels. 2.3 kids, usually 2 to make up for those who choose more and both parents contribute to the economic and nurturing health of the family. I sacrificed my career several times to the needs of the family and my wife's career, and we shared the home duties equally with both doing more than our share so that the children would get the support and socialization that they needed. It worked out for the children which is most important."

Believe in yourself.

The Value of a God Belief - Beliefnet

Believe in yourself, then you die.
Lavengro

J'C: "I am OK with that. But it makes it all the more important that I not only have confidence in my capabilities to affect the society I choose to live in but also to do what I can to make a difference before I die. I have no hope of anything at all after death, whether it is Pie in the sky or or a lake of fire. Both are cons to sell belief."

Are all trustworthy?

The Value of a God Belief - Beliefnet

We teach our children to know better than 'believe Humans are trustworthy,' so I don't think it can mean that.
Lavengro

J'C: "Fortunately this primarily a religious teaching tied to Original Sin. As your friend (I hope) Jesus taught us give everybody two smites before you decide hesh is not trustworthy.

Many of us subscribe to the UU concept of radical respect for all people. That is assume all people are worthy of respect until they prove differently. Do not assume that just because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, their skin tone, their eye shape or color of their dress that they are suspect."

This of course does not mean all are trustworthy. But tit for two tats seems to be the most effective game theory strategy in almost all scenarios. I suspect that past history with a believer group, Nazis come to mind, might justify a more conservative strategy, but lacking evidence of clear and present danger, tit for two tats seems wise.

Gay humor.

A bit of gay humor, not intended to offend any more than any other limerick,
but I use the last line frequently and people have asked for the limerick.

A gay man who lived in Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room.
They argued all night
Over who had the right
To do what, and with which, and to whom.

Is there value in God beliefs?

Is there any value in belief in God? - Beliefnet

ExploringInside:

"What is the value of a belief in God?

The most obvious values concerning a belief in God include conformity to social mores, strengthening of a sense of community, psychological benefits including the sense of personal power, and increased satisfaction from the internal perception of the expansion of knowledge.

What needs does the belief in God address?

Within Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, Safety Needs are addressed directly and indirectly by belief in God. God is identified as the Protector and Guardian of his flock, the unstoppable foe of enemies, source for miracles of all kinds, etc. Love/Belonging/Social Needs are also addressed directly and indirectly by belief in God. God’s grouping of humans is characterized as a “Church;” membership is claimed to earn one God’s love; etc.

How does belief benefit/improve a person?

Belief can be a bridge out of the quagmire of low self-esteem. The belief that one has the benefit of an infallible Guide can instill the confidence to act rather than remain immobilized due to fear of failure or misfortune. Belief “socializes” a person and helps connect them to a support group outside their immediate family.

God is not required to objectively exist to provide benefit to the believers

The idea of God is more powerful than an actual existence of a being: the non-existent God is not required to conform to reality; supernatural qualities, reports of miracles and anecdotes of His supposed exploits are beyond the reach of falsification; His supposed revelations need only happen to His representatives to earn authority: He is not required to meet anyone’s expectations and is not required to conform to any moral code, not even His own."

J'C: This deserves to be rescued from the train wreck don't bother with the link. Please note the critical fact in the last paragraph. The existence of God supernatural, natural, or at all is irrelevant to the benefits of God to believers and non-believers alike. If God makes my neighbor a happier, better integrated, more productive and better socialized person, I am still looking for the downside, for my neighbor and for me.

I do not live in a vacuum, I am dependent on my neighbors at the very least to keep the street a safe and welcoming place for visitors and my children as they walk to school. They produce goods and services that I need, and if they were in that quagmire of low self esteem either because of low capabilities, or incorrectly evaluating those capabilities they would be unable to produce for society. They consume goods and services that support my society providing the critical mass of consumption that makes the goods and services I need affordable. Many of them provide social, artistic, and intellectual support for me through my contacts with them at work, in the stores, in leisure activities, and even in their church if I can wrangle an invitation as a respectful guest.

God, Humans and Nothing

Inferring gods' character from nature - Beliefnet:

Regardless of whether you believe a personal being is responsible for it or if nature is, you are wholly dependent on someone or something else for your existence and the continuation of it, and for every thought and action that you take. Without something or someone else, you are nothing. We all are nothing on our own. Yes we can do things, we can make a difference by our wills, but ultimately we can take credit for nothing. If we reach out and touch people, we do it with the hands that we did not make.
jonny42

J'C: "I have no problem with being interdependent with all in my chosen society present and past. My parents, from a long line of sapient beings, and an even longer line of successful living creatures, taught me to speak and think, and the moral precepts to take my place in that society. I affect my society and in turn am affected by it. But neither my society nor myself is nothing, and we can take credit for all the wonderful things that society past and present gives us. When we reach out and touch people it is an acknowledgment that we are humans and responsible for not only those we touch but those they touch and have touched."

And a God that stimulates the quote is worth less than nothing.

Art and Nature

Inferring gods' character from nature - Beliefnet:

A beautiful painting is worth just as much if it was painted from existing materials or if it was poofed into existence by magic.
Abner1

J'C: "As much as I enjoy APOD and the wonders they publish daily to give me my spiritual fix or at least one of them, Van Gogh's Starry Night speaks volumes more than any of them. He shows me how to see the stars and the galaxies and the wonders of our universe as a human must. Maybe they are infinite, but we can capture them all in less than a square yard of canvas if, of course, we are a genius."

I think that APOD recognized this. As I remember Starry Night was one of their offerings. Twice!

To know where I stand, please go here.

To know where I stand, please go here. Beliefnet Community:
"Here is where I stand.

I live and love, that requires breathing,eating and pooping and sex.

I did not require a book to figure all that out.

Didn't need Jesus either, he was not available...usually isn't, he does not pay bills, holds no personal responsibility at all because he was out of the real picture a couple thousand years ago.

Why worry about what happens after death? Uh, you are dead. no more bills no worries, no pain, you are reduced to the simplest in the food chain. Every bug squished has its delicious Karmic return.

For Christians, that means do what you want done to you, now. Don't worry about death, that is inevitable, we all die. Looking forward to death is a bit????

Try taking responsibility while still breathing. Don't give it to god or Jesus or some other god.

Try living now and being.

Heaven and hell are human concepts,never proven

If one is actually looking up how to love in a book, they ain't lovin' anybody. Love happened before written language. Sex before then.

If going biblical anyway, the OT COMMANDS a man please his wife at LEAST once a week on the sabbath. Also commands against meat and dairy and a few extras,rules on food and clothing...

Please wife/wives, treat all equally. Anything less was

grounds for divorce. Or worse!

The NT teaches celibacy and female degradation and male bonding. LOL.

Kind of interesting. What comes around... Except the worse comes after death. That does not count, imo.

Do me a favor, take responsibility for own crap. Jesus nor God will pay for anyone's transgressions.

They do not show up for trial here and no one has lived to tell about what happens there... ever!

So if someone says 'You will find wonder in heaven' ask for proof. don't kill yourself trying because no one will ever know!

Dar

Get busy!"

J'C: Other than my usual exclusion of the Synoptics from the NT Dar speaks eloquently for me.

Thank you Dar.

Religion in Current Events.

Intelligence=atheism? - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

It is BECAUSE of religion that the teaching of science and in general the quality of the education given to the American population has lagged behind in recent generations. We are steadily becoming more stupid, more docile and more religious as a society.
Sadaya

"It is really hard to find the real horse pulling this cart. Are the dittoheads all religious? Is Rush really religious? Were Bush/Cheney/Rove religious? Were any of the above motivated by their religion or did they just cite it because it added to their power? Religion has been blamed for many atrocities in history, perhaps properly so in some cases, but 'unbiased' historians frequently find other blameworthy influences.

It is my considered opinion that the historical aversion of religion to secular knowledge has made religious people too uneducated to have any meaningful influence on events in the world. However, those smart and venial enough to count believers can certainly figure out ways to use them."

Determinism, Randomness, and the Mind

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will

It seems to me that if brain-function is random, then its product, reason, cannot be relied upon at all.
Lavengro

J'C: "Random with sophisticated feedback can produce quite meaningful results. Think random error in gene duplication with the feedback of selection and one gets a meaningful result of a new successful species, or a meaningful result of a lethal mutation.

I think cause and effect have very little to do with mind/brain function. Essentially the sensory stimulus is random or at least so voluminous that the first cut by the mind can be thought of as eliminating data points that do not conform to an existing pattern in the nerve cells feeding data to the brain, in other words eliminating worthless random stimuli. Apparently the first cut in the retina is an edge. The first feedback loop is that an edge might be useful and the brain 'requests' data from around the edge. If the data around the edge form the capital 'I' the mind says 'Pay attention this is critical data!' Another feedback loop may say forget it it is just a bridge girder, and the mind moves on, and the cause bridge girder resembling an 'I' has no lasting effect.

The important functions of the brain/mind are these feedback loops that correlate fresh input with existing data to reinforce or weaken the data points. Trying to identify cause and effect is an endless chase through the feedback loops unless one reasonably shortstops the process as the mind does and says this stimulus reproducibly is associated with this response and is a cause and effect relationship."

Brain: Fact or Faith - Same old same old

The Brain Processes Facts and Beliefs the Same Way | Newsweek BeliefWatch: Lisa Miller | Newsweek.com:
"Harris, Kaplan, et al. put 30 people in fMRI machines. Half of them were committed Christian believers, the kind of Christians who would immediately agree with the statement 'Jesus ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father.' Half were committed atheists, the kind who would agree with the statement 'The belief that Jesus ascended to heaven is clearly false.' Up on a screen before them, participants would read declarative statements. Some were statements of religious belief, some of religious disbelief. Some were statements about more ordinary facts. Participants had to push buttons—indicating true or false—as the researchers watched their brains light up. Belief in God, disbelief in God, and belief in simple empirically verifiable facts all lit up the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that governs your sense of self. We are, in some sense, what we believe."

It ain't quite as simple as Newsweek would have you believe, but the disconnect between fundies and scientists seems to reside in the same area of the brain. A religious belief and a science fact lie in the same parts of the brain as self image. No wonder we can't talk to each other.

Blind, Pitiless Indifferent Universe.

The Gradual Illumination of the Mind: Scientific American: "In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that 'the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.'"

Which in its blind indifference produced a species that could invent a God which shares that blind pitiless indifference. Why anyone would worship either is a mystery to me. We should celebrate the fact that we miraculously resulted from the ability to survive of countless ancestors, and can do our part to make sure that countless descendants, direct and collateral, live in a more loving and intelligently managed world than we do. We should not be blind, pitiless, and indifferent to our responsibilities to them. In other words we should not let that blind, pitiless, indifferent God manage their lives.

Too Big for a Fork?

As honored guests at a Chinese wedding, we were seated at the Bride's Mother's table along with the few other Caucasian friends of the groom. The table was set Shanghai style, plenty of forks and spoons, no knives, but to avoid embarrassing the Caucasians, no chopsticks. When the sectioned duck course came around I dutifully picked up a 2 in. cube on my fork "As the Chinese do" and tried to enjoy it. The taste was wonderful, but my discomfort in eating it was evident to the hostess, to the point that she suggested that I need not eat the duck if I didn't like it. I realized that the source of my discomfort was my absent mother, hovering over my shoulder saying "NEVER TAKE MORE ON YOUR FORK THAN YOU CAN EAT IN ONE BITE!" yes, she was shouting at me. I fully expected the slap on the hand to emphasize the message. I asked the hostess for chopsticks which I was skillful with and enjoyed the duck and the rest of the meal without offending my mother who never heard of chopsticks.

Where did the conceptual gaffe of eating something that was too big for a fork come from? Intellectually I knew that my actions were socially correct, but at the conceptual level, I was flat-ass-wrong, to the point of nausea. The conceptual truths of proper table manners ingrained from childhood were not to be denied by the simple intellectual truth of being in a different culture with different manners.

Life after death?

Life after death? - Beliefnet Community

Through his ignorance, man fears death; but the death he shrinks from is imaginary and absolutely unreal; it is only human imagination.
Seefan

J'C: "I neither fear nor shrink from death. Birth and death are the frame for my life that provide the purpose and meaning for my living. Whether death is real or unreal makes no difference in my living. The total absence of any evidence other than empty promises of religious con men of any form of existence after death, would indicate to me that what is important in any event is living. I will devote all of my energy and resources to that living, confident that come what may after death the living will be the only meaningful part of existence. Now or later. If there is a later."

Existential Despair

Existential Despair - Discuss Atheism :

I've often wondered if this an outgrowth of the feelings of triviality and hopelessness that the assumption No God engenders. As my close friend put it, ... 'Have you ever stopped to think of it? We are all microscopic specs in a macrocosmic universe.'
Godman

J'C: "While your friend's observation might be a true statement, most of us microscopic specks find good reasons to continue living in the other microscopic specks of our own species and others that we might love and be loved and make a difference in the lives of those other microscopic specks. We are not going to change the shape of the universe, but we can change the lives of our friends and perhaps our society to make it a more loving and friendlier place for all. And while we are at it we can enjoy the spiritual discoveries of our friends and neighbors as they explore that macrocosmic universe."

Suicidal Religious Rejection

Existential Despair - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

I've often wondered if this an outgrowth of the feelings of triviality and hopelessness that the assumption No God engenders. As my close friend put it, shortly before he committed suicide, 'Have you ever stopped to think of it? We are all microscopic specs in a macrocosmic universe.'
Godman

J'C: I am truly sorry to hear about the suicide of your friend. Assuming for the moment that your friend was a considered atheist and not a failed theist, the feelings of triviality and hopelessness are rare and generally temporary in new atheists. Generally atheists find hope and meaning in the society of their friends, but occasionally that society is religious which rejects and casts out a fresh non-believer. This is common not only for atheism but other rejections of dogma that cause a bigoted rejection of the person. Denying a person the fellowship of herm church for doctrinal reasons is an all too common cause of suicide. See the Christianity and Homosexuality board for examples of near suicides for this reason.

It never ceases to amaze me that certain religions are so concerned with their dogma that they will sacrifice their young that reject that dogma. Shunning, excommunication, whatever they call it deprives a young person of the social connections that have made herm life meaningful for much of herm life, and suicide is an all too common reaction to that rejection. I wonder how many of the "unexplained" teen suicides are really explainable by religious rejection for one reason or another. Homosexuality and atheism being the most common causes. Don't expect the kid's church to apologize they would claim that they were just trying to help herm comply with herm faith. Gut-wrenching is way to weak a word.

Human Spirit

Life after death? - Religion and the Human Mind - Beliefnet Community

Exploringinside:

"Humans have spirit and don’t have a soul. I believe spirit is a mental faculty that is experienced though the results of its function. Spirit bridges the gap between reason and emotion, allowing the “aha moments” to surface. Spirit guides and helps employ our senses of empathy and benevolence.

The words 'spirit' and 'spiritual' refer to real aspects of human experience, namely the mental aspects of human life. 'Spiritual values' are those values that fulfill the needs of human consciousness [rather than the survival needs associated with those things such as food, water, warmth, etc that sustain the body.] For example, the determination to strive toward one’s goals is generated from human spirit.

An encounter with art that calls out our emotions and sense of life, but that does not primarily address any physical need, is a spiritual encounter.

Information that just 'pops' into a person's consciousness is identified as coming from the function of intuition, another of the mental faculties."

Thanks EI I wish I had said it.

What is a Soul

Life after death? - Religion and the Human Mind

What is your concept of the soul?
Seefan

J'C: The soul is a myth created to sell religion and the god associated with it. It is based on convincing people their legacy is worthless, and that their only hope is that somehow things will be different after they die. Mostly this takes the form of god thinks you are worthless now, but after you die god will change herm mind and make you something worth while. A con as old as humanity. But the con men are good at their game and can con enough to make a living off the particular myth they are selling.

The horrible thing about this con is that it is a self fulfilling prophesy about self worth. The person who buys into this con is convinced that their only hope is to believe in whatever God the con man is selling and that the pie in the sky after they die will taste better than the worthless wafers dispensed by the con man.

Thank you. I will take my chances with the people I love and who love me, at least I can talk to them, leave a few scribbles on the internet, and trust that I will make enough difference in enough lives that I will be remembered with love and perhaps even a quote or two that helped. The pie in the sky doesn't exist, but even if it did, it wouldn't taste any different from the pie I am making in my life while it exists.

Life after death?

Life after death? - Religion and the Human Mind - Beliefnet Community

The life of the body is a power, a force. Where does it come from and where does it go when the body dies and this life leaves?
Seefan

J'C: The life of the body comes from the survival characteristics of its ancestors back to that amoeba mentioned recently. The power and force come from the society of which it is a part and which provides the nurturing and training so that the person can have whatever influence they are capable of having in their society. For some that maybe only be their family and friends but that is a significant contribution. Others may have a wider influence for good or for evil, but all affect some and the legacy is secure again for good or for evil. The force is a part of the body and dies when the body does. Only the legacy lives in the others that were affected by the person while alive and the stories and myths they perpetuate about the person.

Biblical Morality

What are Darwinists afraid of? - Origins of Life - Beliefnet Community

What is the foundation (The Bible or the ToE and its offspring?) for USA morality, today, vs pre-1750 A.D.
iamachildofhis

J'C: Since ~400 CE Biblical morality can be summed up as believe or die. As you point out most of the colonies accepted this morality by causing the natives to die for not accepting Biblical morality or accepting slavery as an alternative. Around 1700 people became disgusted with Biblical morality and accepted a more enlightened morality of believe in a morality that works for everyone. This encouraged more respect for observation and theorizing about the natural world which resulted in the studies of Darwin among others and the rapid advance of our understanding of the natural world. The bankrupt believe or die Biblical morality was basically killed by the excesses of its practitioners. The underlying gloss of historically socially adaptive morality of some of the commandments and the Hebrew religious rules were accepted not because they were Biblical, but because they worked. Those that didn't were generally honored in the breech and society evolved to its current cosmopolitan and humanistic morality. Which is based on respect for all of all religious traditions, ethnic and coloration varieties. I much prefer it to the believe or die Biblical morality.

I just get tired of Bibliolators holding up Biblical morality as something that is even remotely moral. They seem to think that nobody can read the bible or history to find out what Biblical morality really is: Hate, kill, rape or enslave anyone who doesn't believe in the testosterone poisoned God of the OT and Paul. Not that the Qur'an is any better, but around these parts the Bible is dominant.

Dog Ownership of People

Dave Coverly on the joys of dog ownership of people that is.



Or as Heinlein noted an alien visiting earth would find walking the dog as the executives most important activity as a slave to the dog. Stranger.

Sad commentary on Americans

Tom Toles On why American Health Care does not work.



It really irritates me every time I go to Kaiser and stand in line at the Pharmacy behind 5 obese people and maybe 1 other of normal weight. AKA why my Senior Advantage is so expensive.

Thoughts on listening to the Brahms Requiem.

102.1 KDFC - Casual. Comfortable. Classical. - THE SACRED CONCERT: "Johannes Brahms: Ein deutsches Requiem “German Requiem”
Movements I-IV (44:28)
Gundula Janowitz, soprano
Tom Krause, baritone
Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Vienna State Opera Chorus
Bernhard Haitink, conductor
“Ein deutsches Requiem”
Philips 411 436-2"

If I were ever going to be tempted by Pascal's Wager it would be the God of Brahms. I don't know who to tithe to. The above recording is out of print. Haitink takes it slowly and reverently as I expect Brahms would have liked.

If the Handbriet is all we have on earth I am sure that Gott would like us to live it to the fullest in preparation for continuation in the Lieblich Wohnungen.

Brahms Universalism seems to me to make the life of the living more important to live well. I can't imagine the dwelling that would be prepared for the hate filled here on earth. I would certainly expect that it would be well marked, a huge round building with an enormous cross on the top, so that all who are living in the Lieblich parts could give it a wide berth.

It is a pleasant fantasy but not too likely. It is nice to know that it doesn't make any difference in living.

Atheistic Evolution - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

Atheistic Evolution

I'm curious how you all account for your own existense sans god.
Godman

Somewhere circa 3.5 billion years ago a hungry strand of RNA found that by hiding in a lipid membrane it could duplicate itself and split off another lipid membrane to hide the copy. It was better at doing so than any of the other replicators around and made a lot of copies of itself and survived this was my first ancestor. One of these copies had a mistake in copying and was even better at co opting lipids and survived even better this was a later ancestor. Later another ancestor found out that DNA was better at replicating without errors, and survived better than RNA predecessors. Much later another ancestor found a better way to survive and prosper. The key here is that there is an unbroken line of organisms that survived long enough to reproduce including my parents, that accounts for my own existence sans God. Improbable? Yes indeed. One might even call it a miracle. But it was a miracle with no God required."

The Fixed-Wing In America's Cup

The Fixed-Wing Is In: America's Cup Sailors Plan to Use Rigid Carbon-Fiber Airfoil on U.S. Entry: Scientific American: "The Fixed-Wing Is In:
The U.S. team for the America's Cup is replacing its boat's mast and cloth mainsail with a hard, fixed wing that is 80 percent larger than a Boeing 747 wing, not to mention difficult and dangerous to maneuver"

Gee, what ever happened to the fat kid hanging out on the trapeze? They still ought to make them power the hydraulics with coffee grinders. Stink boats in the America's cup. What is the world coming to.

Axioms for the Sapient.

Axioms for the Sapient.

have you enumerated your axioms? For I don't see how any theory of knowledge can be achieved with none.
Lavengro

Thank you, or damn you, Lavengro. I know this wasn't directed at me but must be responded to. Version 3.2 necessarily tentative follows:

1. I exist.
That is that portion of my brain that evaluates stimuli, integrates them, and relates them to the gestalt of previous stimuli exists. Cogito ergo sum.

1.a. Spirituality exists.
Spirituality is that portion of my brain that evaluates the importance of the various integrations of stimuli. It is necessarily internal.

2. Other exists.
Other consists of that which has the potential to present stimuli to sapient beings.

2.a. Other includes the material.
That which presents direct stimuli that can be measured. The material includes the stuff of my body and brain, and that of others (people.) Reality in the material world is conformance to measurements of self and others.

2.b. Other includes the conceptual.
Stimuli from the working of the other thinking beings alive and dead, usually expressed as stories, myth and theories. It contains the integrated gestalt of individuals or groups of thinking beings. Truth in the conceptual is that which resonates with the gestalt that is me. It is necessarily subjective.

2.c. Other includes the social.
The others which by chance or choice I must allow stimuli both ideological and material from and incorporate into my existence. Morality is the ideology that permits the smooth functioning of my social reality. Morality is necessarily reflexive.

3. Other exists independently of observation.
Other exhibits changes in lapses of observation.

Creationist Quiz

The Secret - Origins of Life

EarthScientist: Let's play match the creationist, draw a line from the YEC creationist to their real name!

Jan Peczkis - - - - - - 57/trilobyte/YEC

Stuart Nevins - - - - - John Woodmorappe

Karl Crawford - - - - - Steve 'not stone cold' Austin"
..........................................................

Blü: EarthScientist

Karl and faith will be able to solve two of your three puzzles but they'll never work out the third one.

............................................................

SIS: ? But if you know two of the three doesn't the third Q have only one remaining answer?

Oh, I see now, even if it is totally obvious to everyone else that only one answer remains, creationists still won't get it.

That's a profound insight, Blu. Quite profound.

It is not about life after death. It is about the funeral.

Does proselytizing commodify human beings? - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:

It’s not about your death. It’s about the lives of your grandchildren and their grandchildren.
Blü

And much more important the lives of those that showed up at the funeral or memorial service (or should have.) For most people only the children and grandchildren have any real interaction with the live parent. After that the genetic and memetic legacy is important in the progeny, but the folks at the funeral carry most of the social and loving legacy of the deceased. This is a fact for all, religious or not. Christians may get pie in the sky after they die, and Muslims their attendants, but that is myth. Those at the funeral are truth, whether they are there or not."

Two Careers, two children '70s

Ontological Inferiority of Women in Paul and the OT - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:

Men want to take a more active role in caring for their children, but two out of five admit they do not spend enough time with their sons or daughters.
Kwinters

As an early adopter of the concept of a two high level career household with children, I found many social norms to be totally incompatible with the concept, in two cases costing me my job and career prospects due to role issues for males and females. I chose to take the hit as I had the social (male ease of job movement) and educational resources, to be able to. The fact that my wife was not paid a head of household salary in spite of having a head of household job made the choice harder, but we both knew what we were up against in both large and small social issues. Just being the only adult male in a preschool area of a park was frequently an interesting experience. I would occasionally have to call my kids to justify my presence there, a few times to cops. Not complaining, mind you, we both chose the road with clear knowledge of the ruts and potholes. And believe me, the gender ruts were obvious and unavoidable.

It started when we were admitted to a big name U for Grad school, she in medicine me for an MBA. We went to financial aid and said "We are broke, how do we do this?" The aid guy said its easy she gets a job and puts you through the MBA then you get the big bucks from the MBA and put her through med school. We said we are both starting in the fall, what part of that don't you understand? To their credit they found a way, a grant for her tuition and a crippling loan for tuition and expenses for me. Abject poverty is good for the soul and for concentrating on studies, a movie was off the budget even if we smuggled in our own popcorn.

Tenure track medical education was no walk in the park in those days or now for women, which is why I had to use the MBA connections many times involuntarily. Like the time the boss said your wife must be at this party for the sake of your career. Guess what? He was right. She wasn't there (professional obligations) and I had to find another opportunity. I suppose if the promotion had been more important to me I could have arranged it, but I was pissed. It wouldn't have worked anyway as the company culture was wife as help mate in company politics.

The idea of social structures without a sexual division of labour is an interesting one...
Kwinters

It can be done. It just takes a major commitment on both sides. Mom was in her lab 'till lunch time in prep for a planned 2:00 induction for our second. In return I had to handle the middle of the night feeding. That is get up, get the kid, hang him on the teat, wait till he pooped, change the diaper and put him back in the crib.

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will --Randomness

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community: "I am quite comfortable with the randomness of living. Unlike some of the hard theists here, I think causality is the exception rather than the rule. If God is watching over anybody Hesh is doing a lousy job. In my view free will is expressed by how we react to the random events that color our lives including that huge one of our inevitable death. Our lives began with the random meeting of gametes, and random events like finding and losing friends, and lovers define how we choose to live. I live my life intentionally, in that I choose which random events I wish to react to and how I do so. Free will is not even an issue, there is no compulsion to do anything I choose not to do. Although things may happen that I must choose to react to. But there is always a choice. When the green car came flying over the center barrier into my lane, I could choose to do nothing and experience the fun of a high speed head on, or I could choose to steer as close to the barrier as I could. One might say the choice was forced, but it was still a choice. Making good choices is the essence of living in a random world."

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will ---Solipcism

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

I need the axiom to get rid of solipsism &c.
Blü

What is wrong with solipsism? It needs to be recognized, understood and controlled, but even your axioms are fundamentally solipsistic. They are what you believe and what make you comfortable with your relationship with the material world. Pretending otherwise may cater to your materialism, but does not get rid of the solipsism.

I have no problem with solipsism. As a wonderful quote from Heinlein notes, 'Sometimes she goes away, but I am always here.' That is how I know the relationship of self with the rest of the world. I do not doubt the reality of the rest of the world, even when it 'goes away' but I do know the difference between self and other."

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:

Forgetting 'random' for the time being -- if the brain's random we might as well pack up and go home --
Lavengro

What everyone is forgetting is that random is not an either/or condition. In fact rationality might be defined as reasonable responses to random events that occur both internally to the brain and externally as in spilled cumin in the curry. (Should I eat it or spit it out?) The brain has sophisticated feedback that evaluates odd inputs either internal or external to see if it is important to current events in the mind. That random linear flash of reflected sunlight might be nothing. In the vicinity of a passing car the brain will ignore it. But in a crowd of people the brain might decide to direct the full attention of the mind to look for danger associated with such linear flashes. Many millions of years of separating out dangerous random signals from similar random signals that are normal patterns in the environment make dealing with the randomness of the environment a critical survival trait.

The brain's internal random juxtapositions of thought patterns is the essence of human creativity and free will. A vaguely remembered dream of a snake biting its tail juxtaposed to a vexing structural chemical problem may be responsible for modern organic chemistry. One can play the determinism game all night long and say August Kekulé had the dream because of a logical train of subconscious thought on his problem, but the waking correlation of the dream to the problem at hand seems to be deterministically improbable to the point of ridiculousness. The mind might be envisioned as a laser cavity of random thought processes that reinforce to produce meaningful waves or flow past each other without hooking up at that time. Sooner or later less important thought processes are relegated to the memory for future use as needed, (don't ask me how the mind knows they are needed, or how it retrieves them from the memory, I am not that smart.) But I do know that the mind is extremely versatile in processing that endless stream of data.

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will -- Peek-a-boo

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:

As I said, the only non-arbitrary starting point for knowledge to begin, which is implicit in all knowledge, is the distinction between something which is observed and ourselves as observers of it. Before we can know anything about anything, we must first observe something which we subsequently attempt to know (ie determine the nature of).
Clardan

A recent AI article in Scientific American noted that peek-a-boo is the AI holy grail. I have been thinking about that a lot recently, not only because peek-a-boo is fun to play with kids, but because an infant in the cradle can play peek-a-boo with a relative stranger and still tell the difference between self and other no matter which of them is doing the hiding. I would agree that the distinction between the observed and ourselves as observers and interpreters of what is observed is fundamental.

I think Blü is entitled to his axioms:

There is a world external to the self. The senses are capable of perceiving this world. Reason is a valid tool.

They describe the reality that he observes, just as the theist is entitled to the axiom that all observations are manifestations of the will of God, and Descartes is entitled to his view that observations are manifestations of his will. I agree that Blü's axioms are probably the best description of our interactions with what we observe, but he has no greater claim to TRUTH than the bible thumpers.

I have no problem with a separate material external reality that we can discover and manipulate with science and technology. I also have no problem with a separate internal reality in other people by which they view the world. If it includes a God that watches over them and will take care of them if they pray hard enough

how hard, hard enough to make water flow uphill. Lazarus Long

that is as much their privilege as it is Blü's and mine to depend on materialistic science and technology. I find the God that many pray to is worthless, but it is still their free choice to do so. Sometimes I would like to warn them that God and Herm followers are subject to evolution just like all the other animals out there, but it would do no good, and probably annoy them in the process.

How are people created?

Let's play a science game - Origins of Life - Beliefnet Community:

If 'Yes' did you cause yourself to exist?
If 'No' then something else was by NECESSITY responsible for your existence
CaliberCadillac

I did not cause myself to exist I exist because of the random meeting of gametes, which were generated by meiosis a random division of germ cells which creates a random mix of the characteristics of my parents (and their ancestors) to create maximum diversity in my genetic makeup.

I was fortunate (that is the product of a series of favorable random events) to inherit an intelligent reasoning ability to evaluate my society and fit myself into the reasoning and intelligent portion of it. I was also fortunate to have a deficiency in the ability to kowtow to arrogant preachers and apologists who think they have all the answers to all questions. In fact it is more than a deficiency it is an active rejection of all such individuals and their BS."

Speed Dating

Head Lines: Men Are Choosy, Too: Scientific American: "Ladies must be picky because they invest more in their offspring, according to the oft-repeated evolutionary theory. But when researchers made the simple switch of having women do the table hopping while men stayed seated, the two sexes suddenly became equally choosy,"

So much for evolutionary explanations for a dumb experiment.

Just Don't Do It.

Obviously prior to contraceptives and STD preventative measures being commonly available this edict made considerable sense. With the ubiquitous availability if not use of these measures it would seem that the edict makes less sense than it used to. After all, the pair bonding efficacy of sex is a useful feature in a desire to form a pair bond against the vicissitudes of the big bad world out there. If that is the only intent of the pair bond, that is it does not include a desire or plan for parenting, I see no reason not to proceed. However when the pair bonding is for the eventual purpose of conception I have reconsidered the thought of contraceptive sex as a recreational or pair bonding activity.

Having been around the horn (pun intended) several times in several relationships with and without the intent for progeny, the decision to try for a child by a loving couple inevitably changes a relationship by changing the focus from each other as people and partners to the planned family with all the extra responsibilities and commitment that a family entails. With all of the other pair bonding activities available to a couple that are mutually gratifying and intimate there seems to be a case to be made for reserving that ultimate bonding act intended by nature for the welfare of the continuation of the species for the time when the couple is ready, willing and able to do so. Certainly "taking off the rubber" changes things, but in my opinion and experience not really enough.

Maybe all those religions know what they are talking about when they say "Just Don't Do It." Particularly for couples that commit early, and must defer family for educational or financial considerations, it would seem that the other pair bonding activities should be used to keep the pair bond intact and save the lets make a baby for the icing on the (wedding) cake, even if the wedding is off in the future. First gestations are notoriously short, but should never be an accident. If the couple has thought about it, talked about it, and decide parenting it right for them, the power of the first time "as one" seems to me to be worth the wait.

All Souls New York City

All Souls New York City: "REV. FORREST CHURCH


September 23, 1948 — September 24, 2009

Remembering Forrest—An Online Tribute"

Me, Myself, and I?

Me, Myself, and I? :

So for both atheists and theists out there, is there an overarching definition of personal identity, or is the answer based on who you ask?
Furthermore, how do you define yourself in such a way if that is taken away, one cannot call themselves same person that they were when they had that?
Ephemerae_inc.

"The differentiation between the mind and the sensory workings of the brain is what separates the concept of self from everything else, including the functioning of one's own body and brain. Whether this self concept is internal, that is supported by the activity of the brain, or imposed from some external source (God) will depend on who you ask.

Many who use Genesis as a source will aver that what God 'breathed' into Adam was the sense of self with the ability to reason about what one experienced, and not incidentally, the ability to separate a stimulus, that is hunger from the response, that is to decide what to eat. This ability to separate a stimulus from the appropriate response is what a theist will call a soul, and consider it to be separate from the body and ego and originating outside of either.

I find this a natural function of a brain of sufficient complexity. Right now I am training a puppy, and one of the things I am training him on is the appropriate responses to certain stimuli. And teaching him the concept of his space. This requires that I assume he has some ability to separate his actions from the stimulus that might lead him to leave his space. He has learned that his space is different from the space of others in his life. When someone leaves his rooms he must not follow as a dog normally would, he must stop at the edge of the rug which defines his space, and not pass the boundary.

My sense of self is much more complex of course, but includes the concept of my space, those things I can affect and respond to, and my ability to determine reliably and quickly appropriate responses to stimuli that affect my space. This includes of course other people who contact my space, and morality consists of how I respond to stimuli that they present. If someone smites me on the right cheek, I need to decide whether the natural response of a swift kick to the crotch is appropriate or not. But even the swift kick must be a reasoned response if I am to be comfortable with the self concept that separates me from all the others around me. The time a response is reactive to a stimulus is where I lose the sense of self and self control and become just another animal in the jungle."

Jeff Danziger on Health Care Reform

Fairy Godmothers

Facebook | Home: "Meg Barnhouse from Nina and Dan: 'If I could I'd find a fairy godmother with a magical wand and combat boots so that she could grant your wishes and kick the crap outta anything that tried to get in the way of your happiness.' Thanks!"

One of the many reasons Meg Barnhouse is on my Google Alert list.

Mary Travers

From an email to members from Rosanne Zoccoli President of NYCS.

She has said everything I have been trying to get posted so much more eloquently than I ever could.


Dear members,

No doubt by now many of you have heard the sad news that longtime folk legend and friend of NYCS, Mary Travers, has passed away following a valiant battle with leukemia.

Along with fellow performers Peter Yarrow and Noel (Paul) Stookey, Mary was part of an enormously successful collaboration with NYCS. For 21 years, Peter Paul and Mary performed their pioneering brand of folk music with the NYCS on the stages of Carnegie and Avery Fisher Hall, on Broadway and on television. Throughout our collaboration with the trio, they had always donated their services free of charge to the NYCS - a gift for which we will forever be grateful. We will forever be thankful for the gift of music they gave to us and our audiences.

In all of these concerts, Mary was a central figure. She sang, smiled, and loved being a part of NYCS. Those of us who have been in NYCS for many years also remember fondly how Mary would bring home-made chopped liver to rehearsal ---a gift for all to enjoy.

Thank you very much.
Sincerely,

Rosanne