The God Delusion

[JohnPlace]

Guys,

On another, totally unrelated note, do any of you have any idea why new posts in a thread don't always appear when you refresh the page after modifying a post?

I had to leave the thread and come back before the two latest responses were visible.

I was modifying a couple of my posts for a long time -- if I had known you guys had already responded, I might have stopped.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Using the specific example that I gave (which was just one possible example in an endless array), you may be correct.
My opinion? If you could somehow remove all the personal history from everyone's memory, we'd still find a way to re-invent religion and spirituality. I have no way to prove this, of course. But I believe it.

To reinvent it, probably - we humans do like to see patterns where there are none. But to require it, I'm not so sure.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

1) That sounds a lot like a belief to me, as opposed to a verifiable and repeatable scientific fact, and

I think it's either a psychological fact or very close to one. People resent being told what to do, or to believe. Control is important to the human psyche and people want to feel they do something because they choose to do it. That's why 'shoulds' are frequently a recipe for procrastination.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

2) As I mentioned in my response to Mark, the portrait that I painted of spiritual people as sheep was unfair -- that was not my intent.

I didn't interpret you that way and don't think I posted anything that suggested that I did.

[Liara Covert]

Well, it certainly seems that this Dawkins book has sparked some debate. To me, this is part of what makes any book successful. If any author proposes that one religion is necessarily better or more accurate than another, then clearly, the author going to offend a large number of people who follow another line of thought or belief system.

I find it fascinating how people can so easily be diverted from the core aspects of spirituality which supposedly link all religions together. Whatever happened to the idea of common good, love, peace and all that? Something happened somewhere along the way that drew new attention to the power of greed, lust, envy, pride, gluttony, and other vices.

Globalization is mentioned in Dawkins book. The concept poses for humanity a potential problem of plurality. That is, people have too many options for religion without a universally-accepted equal value for each option. The dawn of the global age signaled the end of social isolation for many religions. People impose their own value judgments on religions themselves and on other people. What's next?

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Keith

To reinvent it, probably - we humans do like to see patterns where there are none. But to require it, I'm not so sure.

If you recognize that we'd probably re-invent it even if we erased our memories of it (debateable, I realize), then the distinction between this strong human tendency and "requiring" is one of semantics in my book -- we can use your terminology or mine, either is equally satisfying to me.

I think it's either a psychological fact or very close to one. People resent being told what to do, or to believe.

The ability to think for one's self is critical. And I think most spiritual people are doing that (at least to the extent that any group of people does it).

This is precisely why I corrected myself regarding the "sheep" implications earlier in this thread -- spirituality, at the level of the individual, requires "buy in." The level of analysis involved in the "buy in" will vary from person to person and may even fluctuate throughout a person's own life.

And when you say that people "resent being told what to do," context is everything. A person actively seeking an answer will have a different frame of mind than a person being "corrected" by someone whom he did not consult for an opinion.

I've also seen enough of human behavior to know that some people actually enjoy being told what to do -- I've seen far too much of this, in fact. My point is that human behavior is more variable in this regard than you suggest.

[Michael Chui]

First, this is the first time I've used the multi-quote thingy. So, before I respond to anything, ZOMG! AWESOME!!. Yeesh, no more opening up the thread again and searching for the post numbers. Yay!

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

On another, totally unrelated note, do any of you have any idea why new posts in a thread don't always appear when you refresh the page after modifying a post?

Sounds like they're cached. I personally don't edit a post after about... oh.. 30 seconds have passed; I try to do all of my editing before I actually make the post.

What I usually then do is close the tab or click on "User CP" and refresh that. Also, if you "Go Advanced", and then "Preview Post" regularly, you'll see new posts updated.

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Well, it certainly seems that this Dawkins book has sparked some debate. To me, this is part of what makes any book successful. If any author proposes that one religion is necessarily better or more accurate than another, then clearely, you're going to offend a large number of people who follow another line of thought or belief system.

A sidenote: my shuffled music library has turned to Les Miserables - Encore 2 - One Day More. Which is a compilation of a number of English and French singers declaring revolution. It's one of my favorite tracks; terribly compelling and moving.

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

I find it fascinating how people can so easily be diverted from the core aspects of spirituality which supposedly link all religions together. Whatever happened to the idea of common good, love, peace and all that? Something happened somewhere along the way that drew new attention to the power of greed, lust, envy, pride, gluttony, and other vices.

Nonsense. These ideas are still there, just as the 7 deadly sins have always been around since the dawn of the hunter-gatherer.

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Globalization is mentioned in Dawkins book. The concept poses for humanity a potential problem of plurality. That is, people have too many options for religion without a universally-accepted equal value for each option. The dawn of the global age signaled the end of social isolation. What's next?

This is why I have taken to regularly harping on the need for a global perspective on religion. People who ask questions about religion are typically ignorant of religions outside of Christianity. At best, they have a brushing knowledge of Islam and Buddhism. Notice, here, that no one bothers debating the internal conflicts within Christianity, just as they do not bother considering the internal divisions within Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. Even most Christians have little more than the most basic understanding of Christ and the canonical Bible.

Our own Akashic Librarian, for instance--I don't know if he's reading--is a professed and passionate atheist. However, once he was shown lyrics of a movie he liked, well... read his signature. That stanza is from the Upanishads, a Hindu text.

So, I'll take this opportunity to plug one of my older essays that, in this age of identity crises, seems more and more relevant:

raccaldin36: People Structures: Whiplash

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Mark, I did not intend my "less than generous" remark to relate specifically to the person who does not know that cheating is wrong. I meant it to relate to your view of anyone who turns to religion for answers.

Ahh, then I'm sorry, I didn't intend my remark regarding turning to religion to answer the question of cheating to apply to anyone who turns to religion for other reasons. In the specific case of the man concerned about cheating, no, I'm less than generous. But in the general case of understanding the way to live a good life, yes, I think religion can help.

There is wisdom in religion and so it's beneficial to turn to it for some answers. So I agree, there are more subtle moral questions than that of cheating. Perhaps those questions would serve as better examples. (as a side note, this is a pet peeve of mine regarding many books which use anecdotes to illustrate an important point. The anecdotes are invariably an obvious example which does nothing to clarify the point being made)

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Furthermore, this picture that I may have unintentionally painted of "spiritual" people as sheep is niether accurate nor fair.

I didn't think you were painting that picture.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

It's getting kind of hard to follow this debate (I think we need nested includes), but I'll do my best here. Those Sunday School Lessons, readings, and homilies may have been the vehicle through which he was first introduced to the concepts of coveting and adultery. When the person becomes aware was not critical to my point -- at least, I don't think it was!

No I didn't think it was, nor was it my point :P

My point was that the man considering cheating is missing some key Christian values.

(voila, nested includes. They're a pain to write tho...)

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Well, if you truly believe that logic should supplant spirituality as a means of finding answers in EVERY CONCEIVABLE SITUATION for EVERY PERSON, carry on. It's good to believe in something.

I can see how you formed that conclusion if you thought my comment regarding the cheating man turning to religion was directed as anyone turning to religion for any reason. Rest assured that I don't believe logic should supplant spirituality.

I believe that there is are contexts in which spirituality is beneficial, and there are contexts in which logic is beneficial. And sometimes they're the same, but in other cases, such as the cheating man, they're not.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

And underneath the hood of all this, what we really have is human nature.

And this is ultimately my point; Spirituality is, at it's core, not about mystical, unfathomable, ethereal concepts. It's about human nature. All the rest is a distraction.

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

I find it fascinating how people can so easily be diverted from the core aspects of spirituality which supposedly link all religions together. Whatever happened to the idea of common good, love, peace and all that? Something happened somewhere along the way that drew new attention to the power of greed, lust, envy, pride, gluttony, and other vices.

See my previous comment

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

The dawn of the global age signaled the end of social isolation. What's next?

Alien subjugation?

[Liara Covert]

Mark LaPierre: How do you know Humanity isn't already under 'alien subjugation' and the God Delusion isn't just another distraction from reality? I agree that spirituality is supposedly grounded in human nature. However, many people spend much if not all of their lives trying to figure themselves out so a spiritual side appears to remain, in large part, a mystery.

Michael Chui: One day soon, I may figure out the "multi-quote thingy." Its does appear the '7 deadly sins' are linked to many different religions and this title happens to be how they've been grouped in a few. My mind wanders to that film SEVEN with Morgan freeman and Brad Pitt.

John Place: I agree that all logic isn't scientific. Hence, for example, the long standing debate between the logic of science and religion. I'd be interested to learn more about your views on spirituality and what you consider to be their influences. Is it something you readily explain for you?

Akashic Librarian: I wonder if you agree with Dawkins, whether you could see yourself authoring a similar book or if your views would be different.

Keith: Why are you convinced humans see patterns where none exist? How do you know we don't each perceive our own individual 'patterns' on some level which are invisible or unfathomable to others?

Anagogy: I was thinking more about the Einstein quote you mentioned earlier in this thread. Do you think Scientific and Religious interests thrive on the idea of "agree to disagree" , but are willing to try to convince you to take sides anyway? Is it a challenge or simply a way to perpetuate a longstanding rivalry between two historically antagonistic (divergent) camps?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Mark LaPierre: How do you know Humanity isn't already under 'alien subjugation' and the God Delusion isn't just another distraction from reality?

Ha! I don't! I don't at all! Which is precisely why I wrote this.

(though I did mean subjugation of aliens, not by)

[JohnPlace]

Excellent response, Mark. You and I are completely on the same page, except for this:

And this is ultimately my point; Spirituality is, at it's core, not about mystical, unfathomable, ethereal concepts. It's about human nature. All the rest is a distraction.

And in reality, we may even be on the same page regarding this, but I want to probe just a bit further because this is an interesting conversation.

Yes, we clearly agree that the thing "under the hood" of both spirituality and unscientific logic is human nature.

But the way I see it is that spirituality (and other models, such as unscientific logic) can be interpreted, at least on some level, as the result of the collision between human nature and the unfathomable.

A minor distinction perhaps, since man obviously does not live in a vacuum.

[Liara Covert]

John, (or alien body snatcher, whichever the case may be)

do you assume human nature is neither scientific nor spiritual at the core? And, how would you describe a measurable or identifiable result of the collision you imagine involving the known and unknown?

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

John, (or alien body snatcher, whichever the case may be)

do you assume human nature is neither scientific nor spiritual at the core?

I don't know that I'm prepared to give an accurate thesis on the science (or lack thereof) of human nature, but my initial, intuitive response is that human beings survived this long because of our wonderful minds.

As one of my professors once said (I'm paraphrasing), "Humans were terrible monkeys. We didn't climb well, we weren't particularly dexterous, and we had no natural weapons."

This does not imply that man's thought processes are inherently "scientific," but rather that they helped him survive. Clearly, human beings are not universally scientific in their logic (examples abound), but we do have the capacity for science -- perhaps it could be said that both the wonder and the curse of human nature is its great adaptability.

[Mark Lapierre]

John: I agree, at some level, yes, human nature and that-which-we-don't-understand do collide. But what we piece together from that collision usually reflects more on human nature than it does on the nature of the unknown, because there is no real collision. It's a conceptual collision which manifests through thought, feeling and emotion.

That's why I think spirituality isn't about the unfathomable, but mainly about ourselves and our place in the world, incidentally about our relationship with the unknown, and only superficially about the nature of the unknown itself. And in the pursuit of understanding of the primary point, ourselves and our place in the world, the unknown is a distraction.

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

John: I agree, at some level, yes, human nature and that-which-we-don't-understand do collide. But what we piece together from that collision usually reflects more on human nature than it does on the nature of the unknown, because there is no real collision. It's a conceptual collision which manifests through thought, feeling and emotion.

Fair enough. As long as we apply the same rules to unscientific logic, I concede that ultimately what we have is a window into the logic and curiosity of man himself, not necessarily a window onto the unknown.

Of course, this is precisely the point I was making earlier, when I spoke about man's quest to understand that which cannot be understood. It's really more about man's quest than the unknown itself. The only word of caution I will offer here is that what you and I are saying hinges upon something which cannot be proven -- so then, what we have is a logical axiom, and a spiritual counterpoint which might call you and I both fools.

So does this mean that spirituality cannot provide real answers? I suppose you and I will have to get together on the other side to talk about it over a cup of coffee to see how it all shook out when our lives are over.

I'm making an appointment in my little book, and I'll expect you there.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

I don't know that I'm prepared to give an accurate thesis on the science (or lack thereof) of human nature...

If you want to learn something about it, check out Antonio Demasio's Descartes' Error.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

So does this mean that spirituality cannot provide real answers?

I think it does help provide answers if the question is, "What's in here?" But not if the question is, "What's out there?"

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

I suppose you and I will have to get together on the other side to talk about it over a cup of coffee to see how it all shook out when our lives are over.

I'm making an appointment in my little book, and I'll expect you there.

If there is another side I'll be there, completely unashamed by the discovery that I was wrong

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Mark LaPierre: How do you know Humanity isn't already under 'alien subjugation' and the God Delusion isn't just another distraction from reality?

Check out "The Race for God", by Brian Herbert. The synopsis will do. I didn't read more than 5 pages.

[Liara Covert]

Thanks Michael. I'm open to suggestions.

I also find it interesting to compare views of near-death experience (NDE) survivors to what we have been discussing. According to them, humans tend to make life more complicated than it really has to be. They don't speak of a God so much as a consciousness.

The consensus of many NDE survivors is that the simple secret to living a better life, improving self-understanding, furthering humankind, and preparing for what comes next, relate to our acts of kindness and unconditional love. If the amount of love, good feelings and forgiveness you learn about are supposed to be "the big secret," or what this existence is all about, then why do so many people overlook or disregard the nature of feelings and emotions? What would it take to convince people to let themselves feel pain and pleasure, not only inside themselves, but perhaps more importantly, inside other people whose lives you impact with your choices?

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I think it does help provide answers if the question is, "What's in here?" But not if the question is, "What's out there?"

I recently read one of Steve Pavlina's articles (I think it was Confessions of an A List Blogger) that mentioned, quite accurately, that the criticisms of his articles rarely had anything to do with the article and everything to do with the persective of the person lodging the complaint.

Such is the nature of all non-scientific logic, I suppose. Most of the time, our arguments say more about us than anything we might be arguing about. Many years ago, I remember watching the Jerry Springer Show (before it became overtly staged and fake), and whenever an audience member stood up to criticize those on stage, the words spoken always revealed more about the speaker than the one spoken about.

This concept extends way beyond spirituality, methinks.

[Mark Lapierre]

I think so too, and that's not the most welcome thought when I find myself being argumentative or defensive

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Keith: Why are you convinced humans see patterns where none exist?

'cos we do. Look at an electricity socket and you see a face. Look at a particular cloud and you see a bunny rabbit. Recognition is a key evolutionary survival skill. And false positives tend to be less detrimental than false negatives (it's far preferable to think something is a sabretooth tiger when it isn't than to think something isn't a sabretooth tiger when it is).

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

How do you know we don't each perceive our own individual 'patterns' on some level which are invisible or unfathomable to others?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

The ability to think for one's self is critical. And I think most spiritual people are doing that (at least to the extent that any group of people does it).

I never implied otherwise. I was purely referring to the human preference for internal knowledge over external. (How many times do people 'reinvent the wheel' rather than listen to someone else on how to do it?).

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

And when you say that people "resent being told what to do," context is everything. A person actively seeking an answer will have a different frame of mind than a person being "corrected" by someone whom he did not consult for an opinion.

I've also seen enough of human behaviour to know that some people actually enjoy being told what to do -- I've seen far too much of this, in fact. My point is that human behaviour is more variable in this regard than you suggest.

In both these cases people retain control. In the first they are accepting the absorption of external knowledge that they have deliberately sought out and vetted. In the latter they follow because the leader is leading in a direction they want to go. If he suddenly veers off, resentment will appear.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

First, this is the first time I've used the multi-quote thingy. So, before I respond to anything, ZOMG! AWESOME!!. Yeesh, no more opening up the thread again and searching for the post numbers. Yay!

What's "the multi-quote thingy"? I'm hand-hacking mine...

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Keith

I never implied otherwise. I was purely referring to the human preference for internal knowledge over external.

Nor did I intend to imply that you implied otherwise.

Although, it does occurr to me that the statement you just made (about the human preference for internal logic) could be debated as well, but I won't do that, since I think we've already established that all non-scientific logic is heavily debateable and that such debates say more about those arguing than anything they're arguing about.

And I think you've all seen well enough inside my psyche for one thread.

In both these cases people retain control. In the first they are accepting the absorption of external knowledge that they have deliberately sought out and vetted. In the latter they follow because the leader is leading in a direction they want to go. If he suddenly veers off, resentment will appear.

We are all told what to do. There are laws, after all -- both secular and dogmatic (many of those closely related). There are many laws of both varieties that I don't particularly "want" to follow that I don't necessarily resent. And where I draw the line between blind compliance and resentment is not the same place where others will draw their lines.

If the point you're trying to make (I'm not sure) is that religion's tendency to "tell people what to do," causes too much resentment for religion to remain useful to millions of people, I politely disagree. If you're trying to say something else, do carry on.

I'm going to try to start following my own advice now.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Keith

What's "the multi-quote thingy"? I'm hand-hacking mine...

Check out the lower right corner of each post. There are three buttons. The one on the right is "Post Quick Reply", and you'll see what that is if you click on it. The one on the left takes you to the advanced editor with the entire post quoted.

The middle one is the multi-quote. If you click on it, it will light up. Then, go to another post and click on the multi-quote for that. I have no idea what the limit is, if any.

Then, click on "Post Reply". You'll see.

[agnostic]

Here's my answer to the God question:

The answer to the existence of God is outside of the realm of human knowledge (the externally verifiable kind). All spiritual and anti-spiritual dogma is unverified as there is no clear evidence for either side. To say it simply, it's purely a matter of belief and as such it is arbitrary. If you believe that you will reincarnate, that you will enter heaven, that you will just turn to dust, each is just a model, neither has any proof.

Wavy Gravy once asked a Zen Roshi, "What happens after death?"

The Roshi replied, "I don't know."

Wavy protested, "But you're a Zen Master!"

"Yes," the Roshi admitted, "but I'm not a dead Zen Master."

I think this is a fight over smoke and mirrors. It's all a matter of feelings and fantasy. That's why every religion calls for faith, not reason. Because spirituality is and as far as I can see will ever be a matter of faith.

If a spiritual model is real? I have no clue. But it can be useful for meditation and dealing with emotions. The problem begins when one takes one path too serious and confuses what can be shown with what one subjectively believes.
This can work just as well with the current scientific model (What's the diameter of an electron?), which is very ironic given the basic credo of science. Never forget that you invented your map of the world and never confuse it with the world itself.

[agnostic]

Okay, I had to post this:

The Dawkins Delusion. Is there really a Richard Dawkins?:

YouTube - The Dawkins Delusion

Have fun.

[Mark Lapierre]

Ha! Brilliant!

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Maguru

There appears to be many definitions of 'spirituality' and the meanings as applied are broad and diverse. It seems the new spirituality is just giving us all something to argue about.
If the reason for this new spirituality is to unite us as a human family, then it ain't working. Can we devise a simplified definition that we can all agree on?

I don't know, but for me, God is just the western word used to describe whatever it is that was the source of existance, and that makes existance possible. I think the answer to that is the only thing that isn't illusionary. For instance, it doesn't take much thought or insight to ask what did 'the big bang' originate from. So, for me, to assume that the big bang is the 'source' of life is illusionary, delusional. I am naturally compelled to wonder about it and seek answers. And the only things that make sense to me, are the principles of all encompassing oneness, long discussed by many of the 'outstanding' Spiritual people throughout human history, and now even being alluded to by 'modern science'.

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by agnostic

Okay, I had to post this:

The Dawkins Delusion. Is there really a Richard Dawkins?:

YouTube - The Dawkins Delusion

Have fun.

That's almost the funniest thing I've seen all week.

But this off topic video took the cake (Don't worry, it's rated G): YouTube - Wife Caught Cheating

[Maguru]

You define spirituality as something that isn't illusionary and I believe it is everything unseen, so what is it?
Does spirituality naturally contain a god?

Originally Posted by Uplift

I don't know, but for me, God is just the western word used to describe whatever it is that was the source of existance, and that makes existance possible. I think the answer to that is the only thing that isn't illusionary. For instance, it doesn't take much thought or insight to ask what did 'the big bang' originate from. So, for me, to assume that the big bang is the 'source' of life is illusionary, delusional. I am naturally compelled to wonder about it and seek answers. And the only things that make sense to me, are the principles of all encompassing oneness, long discussed by many of the 'outstanding' Spiritual people throughout human history, and now even being alluded to by 'modern science'.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Maguru

You define spirituality as something that isn't illusionary and I believe it is everything unseen, so what is it?
Does spirituality naturally contain a god?

Well, for me, I just relate the term God as another word for Spirit.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

So, for me, to assume that the big bang is the 'source' of life is illusionary, delusional.

As has been pointed out many times, the same can be said of God, and spirit. Accusations of delusion are pointless and only serve to reflect the opinion and state of mind of the accuser, and, short of professional medical evaluation, say nothing about the accused.

And because this fire needs more fuel, here's an article in which Dawkins and Lawrence M. Krauss (a physicist) discuss science and religion.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

As has been pointed out many times, the same can be said of God, and spirit. Accusations of delusion are pointless and only serve to reflect the opinion and state of mind of the accuser, and, short of professional medical evaluation, say nothing about the accused.

And because this fire needs more fuel, here's an article in which Dawkins and Lawrence M. Krauss (a physicist) discuss science and religion.

What accusation? That's interesting, you saw what you wanted to see, not what I said. All I said is: So, for me, to assume that the big bang is the 'source' of life is illusionary, delusional, to simply reflect my view, in reference to maguru's post.