The God Delusion

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Uplift

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.

Because anything you say does not apply to anyone else. Why do you speak?

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Because anything you say does not apply to anyone else. Why do you speak?

To reply to maguru's post below, which lead to Mark Lapierre's own coloured view of what I said, and which now even further highlights the point the post makes.

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?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

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.

Ah, I misinterpreted. I've never seen the term "delusional" used in a self-referential way that wasn't also intended to apply to others. "So, for me," usually means, "in my opinion" but not "solely in reference to myself." Unless that second comma is absent. I could go into the exact details of why that sentence structure creates that impression, but in the end I could have just asked for clarification first.

I'm obviously still not used to your unique writing style Uplift.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Ah, I misinterpreted. I've never seen the term "delusional" used in a self-referential way that wasn't also intended to apply to others. "So, for me," usually means, "in my opinion" but not "solely in reference to myself." Unless that second comma is absent. I could go into the exact details of why that sentence structure creates that impression, but in the end I could have just asked for clarification first.

I'm obviously still not used to your unique writing style Uplift.

I deliberately put both commas there, to try to highlight 'for me', and to try and clarify that it is my personal choice and personal situation.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Uplift

I deliberately put both commas there, to try to highlight 'for me', and to try and clarify that it is my personal choice and personal situation.

The point being made is that it didn't work. You'd need an additional negative, a second sentence explaining that it doesn't apply to others, to clear it up. I can't even begin to think of how to explain that something is delusional to some people, but not to others.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

The point being made is that it didn't work. You'd need an additional negative, a second sentence explaining that it doesn't apply to others, to clear it up. I can't even begin to think of how to explain that something is delusional to some people, but not to others.

It's easy, for me. Firstly, you don't assume that what you think, others think. Then, like I did, you just say, for me, it is...say... good to eat apples...fun to surf, best to have 8 hours sleep... or whatever.

Also if you'd taken the sentence in the context of the whole post, as well as the question the post was directed at, instead of isolating it and applying assumptions and intentions, (a technique often employed by the press), its meaning would be much more obvious.

[Michael Chui]

Yes, it did become clear after I read it five times trying to understand you with your explanation in the back of my mind. I guess I just needed to reframe what the word "delusional" meant such that it agreed with your idea of it. Thank you.

[beautyscientist]

I have read a couple of Richard Dawkins other books and watched his television series "The Root of All Evil" when it was aired here in the UK.

I imagine that there wouldn't be much in the book I don't know already so it would be a waste of time to read it.

If you believe in God you will find it challenging. If you are a fundamentalist Christian you really really should read it. By the time you finish it you may well be an atheist.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by beautyscientist

If you believe in God you will find it challenging. If you are a fundamentalist Christian you really really should read it. By the time you finish it you may well be an atheist.

Odd. I would have said the same thing about the Bible.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Odd. I would have said the same thing about the Bible.

Rabble Rouser!

/agreed

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Uplift

It's easy, for me. Firstly, you don't assume that what you think, others think. Then, like I did, you just say, for me, it is...say... good to eat apples...fun to surf, best to have 8 hours sleep... or whatever.

I was thinking about something similar today, Uplift.

We spend a lot of time on these forums debating non-scientific (unverifiable, non-repeatable) concepts, such as LOA, Christianity, and Spirituality. And on other sites (and in the world at large), we spend time debating the ethics of the death penalty, abortion, conservatism, liberalism.

And it occurs to me now that most (perhaps not all) of these debates are useless, except to the extent that they help us define our own beliefs. (One possible exception might involve public policy, which could involve the momentum of what many choose to believe together.)

But my main point is that debates seldom lead to a greater understanding of anything except ourselves. The primary question is not, "Is there a God?", or, "Is eating meat wrong?", or "Is the Death Penalty wrong?" Rather, the questions are:

* Do I believe in God?
* Do I believe eating meat is wrong?
* Do I believe the death penalty is wrong?

In my humble opinion, those personal questions are very important. And much of what is not scientifically verifiable boils down to faith, whether we call it spirituality or not.

I suppose, if we're creative, we could choose to broaden the term spirituality to include all things that one chooses to believe which cannot be proven with science. Let's run that concept up the flagpole for a minute and see who salutes.

This definition would make all humans spiritual, since we all believe a multitude of things which science can neither prove nor validate. Is murder wrong? Is infidelity wrong? Is stealing paper clips from work wrong? Is dating your best friend's ex-wife wrong? Most people probably having an opinion about these things, but don't ask science to step in and answer it.

These questions are only answerable by the spirit, if we include within the concept of spirit all non-scientific logic. And the longer I think about it, the more that definition makes sense.

Just an idea.

[JimC]

I'm not sure what is happening here. Are you all arguing whether spirituality could be considered a God?

It can be God to some people, in fact... it makes more sense to me than an omnipotent power. If spirituality is your God, then yeah, it exists.

I thought you guys might be interested: God Delusion - Why the labels don’t work.

[Mark Lapierre]

John: Those are questions of morality and ethics. Some people already combine those with religion and spirituality. It doesn't seem to have done much good.

Jim: We're currently discussing what spirituality means, though we started discussing whether or not spirituality and religion were necessary.

[Michael Chui]

I need to ask: what is it about my Smoke and Mirrors piece that people find so difficult to read? Because it pains me to watch people discussing round and round what I wrote up and linked. It was even more odd to see someone else use the term.

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

John: Those are questions of morality and ethics. Some people already combine those with religion and spirituality. It doesn't seem to have done much good.

I guess I'm having a hard time getting my point across. I'm not suggesting that it's doing "much good." In fact, I'm not passing any value judgments on it at all.

I'm suggesting the following concept: all non-scientific beliefs (yours, mine, everyone's) might as well be called spirituality, even in people who consider themselves atheists.

Atheists could use a different term, if they liked. But I'm suggesting that there are really only two kinds of knowledge: scientific knowledge, and everything else.

And a very large part of the human experience falls into everything else.

As in, there's very little difference between the man who says, "I believe cheating is wrong," and the man who says, "I believe in God." Neither can be proven by science. Both are matters of belief. Both are identifying traits of the believer's ideology. Both can be supported (and refuted) by logical arguments.

No value judgments implied.

But it's an important concept. Because it basically means that human beings are spiritual by nature (that is, we have the need to form beliefs which do not conform to science).

The man who believes that cheating is wrong because of logical arguments regarding societal impact may think himself superior to the man who believes cheating is wrong because God said it was so (or vice versa), but I find both of those men pretty damned similar.

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I need to ask: what is it about my Smoke and Mirrors piece that people find so difficult to read? Because it pains me to watch people discussing round and round what I wrote up and linked. It was even more odd to see someone else use the term.

I tried, Michael. Seriously I did. It was a well written piece, but it's the sort of thing I'd have to read offline.

One of the things I learned from all my years useability testing is that people read differently from a screen than they do from a book. And that post is just too thick and meaty for me to handle it on a screen. I'm sure others can deal with it fine. Maybe it's my eyes.

Perhaps I should print it out.

[Liara Covert]

JohnPlace: You raise a useful point about how people's arguments reveal a lot about whoever is arguing and what their 'hang ups' are. I would take this a step further to suggest what people argue about reveals the ideas or situations that cause them the most confusion, discomfort and unresolved feelings. Letting go of negative feelings would suggest forgiveness and no longer feeling the need to control or master ideas, people or situations.

Agnostic: That 'Dawkins Delusion' is priceless! Many thanks!

JimC: The discussion began inviting prople to reflect on beliefs and understanding of "God." Some people separate spirituality from religion. Some people believe God is consciousness, or inside each of us.

Keith: To clarify, I question whether we can't each perceive our own sense of a pattern which people outside ourselves wouldn't see. You said you believe people see things "that aren't there." I would suggest that people have different kinds of perception, different degrees of faith about what they perceive and would like to perceive. Perception can also be manipulated, but ultimately, we see and believe what we choose

[DaveTyler]

greatest book ever suggest u all read it

he learly tears apart religions like islam christiaity etc
tho the ur left with the "cosciousess bein god" persoally I DOUBT IT as aevery scienist and neurobiolois says consciousness is a product of the physical brain so nope we ARE seperate. oness dont exist, karma dont exist as no after life or reincarnation exist.

[Mark Lapierre]

Well, if we combine Michael's Smoke and Mirrors post (which I read but apparently didn't assimilate very well) with another of his about definitions (search for it, I'm too lazy to find the link now), and add Jim's link, we get to the core of the problem, which I see as dueling definitions distracting us (or maybe just me) from the lack of any real argument.

So John, yes, there are questions science can't answer, because the domain of those questions is not the domain in which the core of science operates. But that point is confused because, as Michael argued in Smoke and Mirrors, science, logic and faith are not mutually exclusive.

Calling those questions a question of spirituality (or faith) is relevant only in that they rely on an acceptance of key assumptions. But so does science, and logic (again, as Michael pointed out).

This is what I meant about the combination not doing "much good." It wasn't in relation to value judgments, but rather a reference to not helping in resolving the arguments that ensue when people consider the issue of right vs. wrong.

We can call it what we want, but it doesn't change the fact that as long as there is a disagreement over those key assumptions (regardless of what we're disagreeing about), there can be no satisfactory conclusion to the argument (yup, you guessed it, Micheal pointed that out too).

In this particular case, my understanding of the term "spirituality" always implies the involvement of an special force (God or otherwise named, conscious or unconscious or superconscious, collective or singular) above and beyond human nature. That's the key assumption which makes my wine glass purple and yours pink.

However, if you're proposing that we look past the colour of the wine glass and consider the question of what it's made out of, rather than what colours it, then I think we can agree.

In other words, sure, we can address questions of morals and ethics through the agreement of key assumptions, and the propositions and statements that follow from them, logical or otherwise. We can do that with any question, scientific or otherwise. But we if disagree on those key assumptions we'll get nowhere in trying to reach the same conclusion via the same path.

(ultimately I think I would have agreed with you way back at post 90176 if you hadn't included "only" when you said "These questions are only answerable by the spirit")

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

another of his about definitions (search for it, I'm too lazy to find the link now)

Here you go:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/s...efinition.html

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

In other words, sure, we can address questions of morals and ethics through the agreement of key assumptions, and the propositions and statements that follow from them, logical or otherwise. We can do that with any question, scientific or otherwise. But we if disagree on those key assumptions we'll get nowhere in trying to reach the same conclusion via the same path.

Examples:

Judeo-Christian:
Primary Assumption: God is the Ultimate Lawgiver.
Logical Conclusion: That which is Moral or Ethical is anything which God condones, as stated by his Commandments (of which there are way more than 10, btw). Further understanding is gained through revelation.

Humanism:
Primary Assumption: Human Life is Sacred; moreover, Satisfaction is Aimed toward.
Logical Conclusion: That Which is Moral or Ethical is anything that preserves, or at least does not destroy, Human Life.

Satanism:
Primary Assumption: The Individual is Answerable only to Himself.
Logical Conclusion: That which is Moral or Ethical is anything which the Individual finds pleasure in.

Subjective Reality:
Primary Assumption: The Universe is a Manifestation of a single Consciousness.
Logical Conclusion: That which is Moral or Ethical is anything which that single Consciousness believes to be so.

Nationalism:
Primary Assumption: The Nation is the most Important Institution.
Logical Conclusion: That which is Moral or Ethical is anything done in service to the Nation.

As it happens, I don't particularly like any of these. But I wanted to show the variety of directions you can come from. Also notice that it is possible to come to the same conclusion under each of these, given the right circumstances. A Nationalist will agree with the Christian that you should not murder a citizen. However, the former will say, "Because he belongs to the Nation," whereas the latter will say, "Because God has commanded we not murder." They're willing to shake hands, but when the Nationalist starts torturing foreigners for information, the Christian gets a little antsy. And few people are exclusively one, of course; which makes it very nicely confusing.

And no, I'm not going to spell out each argument. I have limits to how comprehensive my understanding is.

[Mark Lapierre]

Heh, yup, can't reach the same destination via the same path when starting from different starting points, but you sure can take different paths.

[Liara Covert]

Although we may all be bound for some destination, even if its not the same destination, our belief systems simply reflect individuality. We can have different starting points and still be connected. Each of us has an outlook of burning intensity, of passionate desire, even if this soul purpose remains hidden. We all appear to be changing, at our own pace, to be stepping off what we individually perceive as "the beaten track" into an uncertain void. Are we all not preoccupied with our own mirages? If people have a heart or a sense of connection to something greater than themselves, then they realize feelings are signposts, links to new meaning. This could be interpreted as a spiritual connection to Humanity, as a common thread that we all share even if we stand at different phases of our own journey.

Its as if each of us is slowly changing from who we thought we were into who we really are. We ask our own questions and uncover our own answers about faith. Higher Forces are part of the image we may chose to create. It would be amazing to connect with the source, to realize everything is as it should be.

Speculation is not encouraged, or it it? Perhaps this is the point.