Hey Turq,
Thanks for weighing in. I've read your response a few times to see if
I can add more in response to T's interesting post, and I haven't
found more than a few scraps. You really nailed it and thank you. I
look forward to hearing T's take on this. For starters, here is a
quote from you that made me smile like a Halloween pumpkin:
"Why then would an atheist be exempt from revelations?
I've met many an atheist who draws his or her inspiration
from nature, or from everyday life, and finds what he or
she sees there incredibly revelatory. Nature, or everyday
life is *enough* to inspire revelation in these folks;
they don't have to believe that there is some sentience
or intelligence "behind" nature, or "behind" everyday
life in order to draw inspiration and yes -- revelation
-- from them."
This is the best articulation of how I feel that I have ever read.
Thoreau got a boner from his grave! One of the things that I used to
value about my religious beliefs was that the hugeness of it all
re-framed my life in context, it made me feel wonder. When I dropped
out of the spiritual perspective I didn't know where I would get that
wonder buzz created by contemplating something so much bigger than me
that the pettiness of my everyday concerns were exposed. It was Carl
Sagan's Cosmos series that restored that feeling to me.
I also got the same perspective enhancement from studying the known
history of man and from spending time contemplating the dinosaur's
complete domination of this planet for 250 million years. It gave me
the same expansive buzz I used to get from finding a passage in one of
the Vedic scriptures that matched my experience in meditation. I
don't need more than to see a picture of a reconstructed Triceratops
skeleton to get to that space in my brain where the endorphins flood
me with wonder and perspective.
Nature is enough on its own, and even what is known about the history
of life on earth is (for me) better than any description of the life
of the gods in the Vedic literature. Explaining that we know that a
force or being made all this adds nothing to what is there already for me.
Concerning ethics. T said: > > You may say so, and it was said. But I
ask you: Where is this > > kind of ethics or morale coming from?
It comes from our social contract that exists in many forms of social
animals. Living together is part of our nature. We have many
built-in dispositions for living with each other comfortably.
Religion has tried to codify this natural instinct, and men like the
U.S. founding fathers (among many others) have attempted to advance
this natural predisposition to an even higher level of ethics than
might arise naturally. But the addition of a cosmic scorekeeper has
seemed to do nothing to constrain humans from acting like demons to
each other in history. I may not go the Christopher Hitchins route
and blame religion for the evil in the world, but I will say it has
been a mixed bag. It has helped and hurt man's ability to live together.
I hope mankind can step beyond religious entrenchment and take
responsibility for what kind of world we want to live in. We need to
drop the strong arm tactics of religion's absolute claims to ethics,
and decide how we can advance our kindness in the actions or our
human institutions.
Turq's perspective of "a" verses "un" theism was thought provoking, as
was T's description of how his version of God differs from the
creator-God perspective. This is an area where I am really benefiting
from this discussion and advancing my understanding.
T wrote: > > In fact Advaita, which has been my starting point, and
still
> > is defining very much what I believe, a personal God is admitted,
> > as real as we are, but he is not a creator, as there is no
> > creation at all, the universe is just a projection, a reflection
> > within Maya, illussion.
This seems to me to be an unnecessary overlay on our experience but
you have to add the states of mind brought about by years of
meditation. Because people in these traditions are steeped in an
understanding to go along with their experience, I don't believe that
this insight is "innocent." The states themselves are so abstract
although powerful, that they beg for explanation. This is provided in
many cases by ancient scriptures and traditions. I am not inclined to
believe that they had this all figured out way back when. They have
added to human perspective and I accept their contribution to human
understanding, but I believe it is time for man to accept the
responsibility that we may be in a better position now to understand
what these states mean.
Pre-scientific man (pre-enlightenment) had less information about life
than we do today. This is the opposite of the belief that in the past
there was a glorious society that understood enlightenment, I know. I
am not saying that the scientific perspective is the only way to view
life. I do believe that we need to invite it to the party because
it's methods help us get around some of our cognitive weak spots.
I see no evidence in the scriptures of any religion that leads me to
believe that they knew more than we can know today. I do see a lot of
specific areas that were dead wrong in light of modern knowledge. A
scripture that described the life of Dinosaurs would be impressive,
but it is completely lacking in any creation myth story. Instead we
get races of flying monkeys doing magical things. (wonderful if taken
as myth and not so much if you take MMY's perspective that this is
literal history)
I respect the people in this group who continue to develop their
consciousness with techniques and hope that some with good experiences
will someday be able to use those states for truly original thoughts,
rather than just confirming that the agrarian societies who produced
most scriptures of the world had it all figured out. Sam Harris is
pursuing this line of thought and experience.
I have too much evidence of when humans made up the stories and
perspectives in scriptures to accept that they might be actually
divinely inspired. I see them as part of a continuum of human
knowledge that is growing. We know more today then back then. That
doesn't mean we should just discount all the human knowledge contained
in ancient writings. Glorifying man's knowledge in the past evades our
responsibility in the present to look at past claims of knowledge
skeptically. I am not able to say that it is possible that the Bible
or Vedas are revealed scriptures from any version of God. I firmly
belief they are human works of creativity, to be admired and studied,
but not to be fooled into thinking that we have as MMY said: "A
manual for the human nervous system. (or was that Domash?) We do not.
What we have is a lot of work to do to integrate the knowledge of
different states of mind with our current knowledge of the brain, and
a hell of a lot of work to do.
High five to Turq an T for a chance to articulate my current
perspective and learn from yours. This is a valuable discussion for
me. I hope other people will weigh in to show the edges of our
understandings that we are missing.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Curtis, this was one of your excellent posts, which at the time
> > I ahd neglected. Today is Friday, and I still have a few posts
> > free ;-)
>
> I didn't, but liked your post so much that I'm replying
> to it on Friday anyway, to be posted Saturday morning.
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think where I differ with T is that he seems to believe that
> > > his experience of the was in a category beyond thinking.
> > >
> > > T " I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do,
> > > and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and
> > > everything."
> >
> > There are experiences where thinking is stopped, and there is
> > simply witnessing of a force.
>
> I have been there, done that, and the only thing I'll
> interject into the conversation is that I would phrase it,
> "There are experiences where thinking is stopped, and the
> *perception* is that there is simply witnessing of a force."
>
> I'd have no problem with that one, although I might with
> the assertion that having had the subjective experience
> or perception of "witnessing a force" was any kind of proof
> that such a force actually exists. I have experienced some
> real *doozies* of "forces," but I don't assume that the
> forces were really there, merely that I experienced them
> *as* there. They might not have been, and that would not
> invalidate my experience of them one whit.
>
> <snip to>
> > > T > > > Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the
> > > > > > same mystical experiences many of us share in a different
> > > > > > way and strips them of any religious meaning they could
> > > > > > have. In fact he tries to understand them rationally
> > > > > > only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio[nality] highest,
> > > > > > and I always understood this to mean a place where
> > > > > > intellect is 'in control'
> > >
> > > I only disagree with this aspect of the characterization, that
> > > my insights are gained in this way: T: "he tries to understand
> > > them rationally only,"
> >
> > Okay, Curtis, I could not have known how this worked for you. I
> > appreciate that there is more to it than pure intellectual
> > reflection. What that 'more' is, one has to see, because due
> > to the very nature of atheism it couldn't have been a ehm
> > revelation of any sort, like a intuition coming from a higher,
> > or more knowing source I assume.
>
> Why not?
>
> Can a Taoist, who believes in no sentient "more knowing
> force" or God, *not* have a revelation? Can a Buddhist
> not have a revelation? Neither of these major religions
> believes in a God per se. But, if the literature of
> spirituality is any indication, they have revelations
> aplenty.
>
> Why then would an atheist be exempt from revelations?
> I've met many an atheist who draws his or her inspiration
> from nature, or from everyday life, and finds what he or
> she sees there incredibly revelatory. Nature, or everyday
> life is *enough* to inspire revelation in these folks;
> they don't have to believe that there is some sentience
> or intelligence "behind" nature, or "behind" everyday
> life in order to draw inspiration and yes -- revelation
> -- from them.
>
> > In fact, as you explain, as atheism is very much something
> > defined through a negative, it can only be a reaction to this,
> > the falling away of something, which you must feel is oppressing,
> > thus a liberation.
>
> Just for the record, I don't agree with the definition of
> atheism as a-theism. It's the same semantic nitpicker in
> me that sees a difference between non-attachment and
> unattachment. Simple difference, only two letters, but
> *what* a difference. Non-attachment almost implies aversion
> or, as you say, negation. But unattachment implies only
> that one isn't attached; one doesn't have to *strive* for
> unattachment...one is only unattached.
>
> In the same way, a-theism to me implies "non-theism,"
> whereas I would classify my stance as leaning more towards
> "un-theism." I don't have anything *against* the notion
> of a God; I just don't see anything in creation that leads
> me to believe that there is one. I am...dare I say it...
> unattached as to whether there is a God or not. The answer
> to this "question" doesn't do anything for me at all; it's
> irrelevant to my life. If a God doesn't exist, I will lead
> my life the way I lead it; if a God *does* exist, I will
> lead my life the exact same way.
>
> Nitpicky stuff, but we've ventured into the realm of semantic
> nitpicking when we talk about belief in a God, and what "God"
> means to the person expressing either belief or non-belief.
>
> <snip to>
> > ...whenever you or Turq speak of Theism, you mention 'a
> > Creator God', yet this is in my oppinion not a defining
> > factor of religion, or the kind of theism I persue.
>
> I will plead guilty to this.
>
> > In fact Advaita, which has been my starting point, and still
> > is defining very much what I believe, a personal God is admitted,
> > as real as we are, but he is not a creator, as there is no
> > creation at all, the universe is just a projection, a reflection
> > within Maya, illussion.
>
> That's one way of seeing it, which I can appreciate. I have
> an issue with people believing that it's the "ultimate"
> reality when it isn't *their* day-to-day, 24/7 reality,
> but I can appreciate the concept.
>
> > So there are many different ways of looking at it, we in the west
> > are usually just exposed to ONE mode of Theism, and if that comes
> > along with oppressive thoughts and ideologies, like the threat
> > of eternal condemnation, its quite understandable, that being free
> > of these concepts must be a liberation.
>
> Just as liberating as freeing oneself from societal ideas
> about what atheism is.
>
> <snip to>
> > > The sense of freedom and clarity it produced has affected
> > > every area of my life in a positive way. It was a much a
> > > total surrender to the experience of awakening as anyone's
> > > religious awakening, it involved all aspects of my being.
> >
> > In a way this is the predicament of atheism. You describe it in
> > a way that is almost religious.
>
> If I might suggest a different way of seeing the situation,
> could your seeing it this way have anything to do with *you*
> being religious? (c.f. the discussion earlier about non-
> attachment vs. unattachment, a-theism vs. un-theism.) To me,
> what Curtis is expressing is *not* an aversion to the notion
> of God or a commercial for the notion of no-God, but an
> attraction to the notion of Mystery.
>
> > I am fine with it, I have no objection, it may work for you,
> > and I believe you got free of oppressive conditioning. But,
> > due to its very defintion...
>
> Ahem...*your* very definition. I still don't think you quite
> get Curtis' definition.
>
> > ...atheism is bound to relate to something else. And you admit,
> > that you cannot know, if there is an ultimate ground, God etc.
>
> Ahem...this is an "admission?" I don't know, either. Does that
> make us lesser than someone who claims to "know?"
>
> After all, there is no way that you or anyone else can *ever*
> prove that you *do* "know." You just claim it.
>
> > Basically atheism, as I see it defined is just the admitting
> > of 'Not Knowing'
>
> Exactly.
>
> > There couldn't be any insight really, except that you don't know.
>
> Not exactly. :-)
>
> This is where you lose us, Michael.
>
> We're off in uncharted territory compared to your way of
> seeing things. We don't know and we *revel* in that. We
> are not convinced that anyone can *possibly* "know." We
> are often suspicious of those who *claim* to know.
>
> That does *not* mean that our belief systems are devoid
> of insight, or that we don't have any. We just have differ-
> ent insights than you do.
>
> > There is another reason why I refer to atheism as relying
> > on Ratio.
>
> The word is rationality, by the way. Or rational thought.
> Although it makes perfect sense to a speaker of Eurpoean
> languages for the root of "rational" to be "ratio," English
> isn't...uh...rational. :-)
>
> > You say, we shouldn't accept an experience however sublmime
> > on face value, or as it presents itself to us, we should rather
> > check it with our mind, with ratio. Now this is where I differ
> > with you. Not that i say, my experience is proof of something,
> > but to me ratio doesn't proof anything either.
>
> And who is "proving" anything, and why? :-)
>
> Again, I think we're back to the issue of you not valuing
> "I don't know" and both Curtis and I valuing it a lot. We
> find some of our inspiration *in* not knowing. You seem to
> be more inspired by the belief that you *do* know certain
> things.
>
> > I can very well leave a factor of uncertainty, and still take
> > my stand, that is believe.
>
> Why do you want to take a stand?
>
> What is it about "what you believe" that suggests that a
> stand should be taken?
>
> > You may say that this is a kind of weakness, that in actuality,
> > we just seek some kind of comfort in this.
>
> For the record, I'm not sure that Curtis said this, but
> I may have suggested it.
>
> > You may say so, and it was said. But I ask you: Where is this
> > kind of ethics or morale coming from?
>
> What on earth makes you associate, "This is one of the
> reasons why we suspect that someone who believes in God
> *does* believe in God" with 'ethics' or 'morality?'
>
> I'm asking because I make no such association. Just for
> the record, I associate the word 'morality' with written-
> down or passed-down "codes" of conduct or belief, created
> by other people and suggested to (or imposed upon) other
> people as guidelines or rules by which they should lead
> their lives. I associate the word 'ethics' with an "inner"
> phenomenon, that "feeling" that arises in you when you
> feel intuitively that something might be 'right' or
> 'wrong.' *Neither* has anything whatsoever to do with God.
>
> > Here we have another problem; Any ethics or morality, if you
> > don't believe in a higher source, or ultimate goal of the
> > universe, is rather weak and self-imposed.
>
> And?
>
> So is any kind of ethics or morality based on the notion
> of a God. Until you can prove to me that there is a God,
> anyway, right? I'll wait. :-)
>
> <snip to>
> > So, why should I deny an experience, because I think that I
> > cannot know it is 100% 'True'?
>
> I don't think that Curtis ever suggested that you do so.
>
> > You see what I mean?
>
> Only if he really said it, or inferred it. I don't see
> that he did. If he didn't, then this is *your* issue,
> not his.
>
> > Truth, to speak the truth is 1 of the 10 Commandments.
>
> So tell me something true.
>
> Something that is true for all sentient beings, at every
> moment of their lives, in every situation, and as heard
> from every state of consciousness.
>
> I'll wait.
>
> > Why should you even care about the Truth (or Non-Truth), if
> > there is no value-system, no goal, no hereafter etc.
>
> Why, indeed. :-)
>
> You may be getting the point. These things are the concerns
> that those who believe that one *can* know the "Truth" spend
> their time thinking about. I don't think that either Curtis
> or I believe that, so we don't spend any time worrying about it.
>
> > Why care about telling anybody that they are oppressed or in
> > need of liberation...
>
> Or that they're missing something by not believing in God?
> Why, indeed. :-)
>
> <snip to>
> > > I don't believe that people who view life from a theological
> > > perspective will "evolve" into atheism. I think some believers
> > > in God think that guys like me will eventually come to believe
> > > (in this or another life) again.
> >
> > Probably thats what I believe, but I am not sure about it. It
> > could just as easily be that some souls just pass out like this.
> > I have no problem with this.
>
> But, as a question, do you see it a good thing or a bad
> thing that "some souls just pass out like this?" What do
> you think *really*?
>
> <snip to>
> > Please don't be offended by any kind of criticsm I
> > have made about atheism in general.
>
> And similarly, don't be offended by any criticisms of
> theism we might have made. They're all just thoughts.
>
> > It's just general thougths. The way you have explained yourself
> > before, you general openess to mysticism and possibly pantheism,
> > doesn't make you an atheist the way I view it.
>
> Again, as a question, what *does* make someone an atheist
> as you see it? As I explained, I see both Curtis and myself
> as "untheists," in the sense that we don't know, and we
> don't particularly care. We are (or at least I am) unattached
> to whether there is a sentient God or not. I don't see either
> of us, presented with incontrovertible proof of the existence
> of a sentient God, changing our lifestyles in any way.
>
> Good rap, and thanks for taking the time to explain your
> position and beliefs. And thanks for being open enough to
> consider mine.
>
