SATCHMO Spouts About Science, Life, and Isms: Another Goddamn Religion Thread

[SATCHMO]

I am an atheist.

Okay, I'm a very soft atheist, but nonetheless I lack a believe in god(s), which qualifies me for the club, although it's a club that I rarely attend. I just get the transcripts from the meetings.

The truth is, I have an issue with atheism, mainly atheists, and it's not that they lack a believe in a god(s), it's that their posture is one defiance and resistance toward the positive aspects of religion without any sort of compassion or understanding towards those who do have faith, although quite understandably so. I hate the cold analytical perspective of materialism, the notion that if it can't be perceived directly through the senses, or has no evidence to back it, it doesn't exist. I wish that there was a tendency in atheism to choose to fill in the void of "lack of belief" with something greater, more positive, and beneficial to human kind, an eager curiosity, something that begs the question, "if not God, then what". Usually this question gets tossed about in the argument over how the universe began, but I would like to see it venture further into other areas with a genuine sense of curiosity for what truly lies beneath the psychology of the religious experience, both in its practice and as religion as a map of ultimate reality in general.

Obviously I've made a lot of broad generalizations about atheists that don't hold true to all who carry the card, but it was done to challenge or call out the strong voices of the forum (you know who you are) and really speak to this side of the issue.

These are some of the questions that I have:

Is it possible to distill the positive aspects of religion/spirituality? To objectively explore spiritual practice as a mental hygiene tool, one that has positive benefits to it's practitioners?

Can we come, will we come to an objective understanding of what spirit is and understand it's dynamic?

When people speak of God, is there something that exists in reality that word points toward, not necessarily an anthropomorphic, autonomous deity, but something else entirely?

What do we make of the religious experience? Is it simply a psychological aberration because it's subjective? If it's an induceable state and it brings joy, is that not a strong argument for trying to attain it, or duplicate it?

That's all I got for now. I'll be playing my own form of devil's advocate with everybody, which will be much more insightful and productive than arguing with an actual religious person. If you are a Christian, or religious person be careful what you post, because I'll delete it if you create frivolous arguments. This is a thread of suspending one's current perspective and that means both sides of the issue. Anyways, carry on.

[Engine]

Answers?

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

These are some of the questions that I have:

Is it possible to distill the positive aspects of religion/spirituality? To objectively explore spiritual practice as a mental hygiene tool, one that has positive benefits to it's practitioners?

Yes

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

Can we come, will we come to an objective understanding of what spirit is and understand it's dynamic?

No

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

When people speak of God, is there something that exists in reality that word points toward, not necessarily an anthropomorphic, autonomous deity, but something else entirely?

Yes, probably. But it's likely the product of inexplicable religious experiences that humans have which you talk about next..

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

What do we make of the religious experience? Is it simply a psychological aberration because it's subjective? If it's an induceable state and it brings joy, is that not a strong argument for trying to attain it, or duplicate it?

Religious experiences are psychological but not aberrant. People have them every day all over the globe.

The fact that they occur is an argument for "trying to attain" a spiritual experience but not a strong one. They seem to happen when they happen for whatever reason. I guess you can meditate for years and have one, or go to a church and have a communal one, or take drugs and have one, or something else entirely. We don't know what causes all of them.

As for duplicating those experiences, I'm hellbent against the idea. If a religious experience happens to a person then they have to choose how to deal with it and I think attempting to duplicate it, grasp it, and own it is wrong because actually duplicating it is improbable and attempts to do so are probably detrimental. No experiences last forever and certainly not religious experiences. I'd say most of the problems that religions cause in the world result from the belief that people can and should duplicate previous religious experiences.

[Sneer]

Before I start, I'm agnostic, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a deity, though I am strongly sceptical. Ultimately, conclusive proof for or against said existence is beyond our knowledge. I do swing towards the side of Atheism, in that I think the existence of a deity is highly unlikely, and belief in such merely serves a social and psychological purpose.

There are positive aspects to religious belief systems. For example, Protestantism instilled in its practitioners a moral code and work ethic which were both essential to the productivity of the Industrial Revolution. Society requires some sort of control to function, and historically, religion has been the main source of this. Granted, things are quite different now with the rise to power of the media etc (media as religion is a completely different topic altogether). It also cultivates a sense of community, which can provide a support structure - something I think is needed for people to truly thrive.

Be this as it may, I do think the cons outweigh the pros. Though we do require structure and an element of control, human beings should also have the courage to tackle life head on and continually pursue new experiences. We should all be able to express ourselves fully and engage with our passions - that's where the beauty of life lies. Of course we should all respect others and work hard for our privileges, but some religions, if not all, rely on coercion, and to me living in the shadow of fear or threats succeeds in doing nothing but dehumanizing an individual. It's easily corruptible, and that's where serious problems arise.

However, on a personal level, I fully accept a person's need to believe in some higher power. I'm sure it can be very comforting believing that, in times of personal struggle or chaos, there is somebody watching over you, and that everything will work out for the best. It also provides answers to life's questions, and human beings feel at their most comfortable and empowered when having an explanation.

I'm prepared to discuss my points in a civil manner, but anybody wanting to get in to some hardcore religious debate can back the fuck up.

[SATCHMO]

Originally Posted by Engine

As for duplicating those experiences, I'm hellbent against the idea. If a religious experience happens to a person then they have to choose how to deal with it and I think attempting to duplicate it, grasp it, and own it is wrong because actually duplicating it is improbable and attempts to do so are probably detrimental. No experiences last forever and certainly not religious experiences. I'd say most of the problems that religions cause in the world result from the belief that people can and should duplicate previous religious experiences.

Obviously, the term religious experience can run the gambit from a profound sense of peace to a mild psychosis, but I have a tough time understanding how a sense of enlightenment should be outright avoided. Is it really the belief that people can and should duplicate previous religious experiences That's responsible for most of the problems that religion has caused in the world? I Would think that designation would go toward intolerance of conflicting lifestyle and point of view, or a desire to impose ones beliefs on others.

Originally Posted by Sneer

There are positive aspects to religious belief systems. For example, Protestantism instilled in its practitioners a moral code and work ethic which were both essential to the productivity of the Industrial Revolution. Society requires some sort of control to function, and historically, religion has been the main source of this. Granted, things are quite different now with the rise to power of the media etc (media as religion is a completely different topic altogether). It also cultivates a sense of community, which can provide a support structure - something I think is needed for people to truly thrive.

Be this as it may, I do think the cons outweigh the pros. Though we do require structure and an element of control, human beings should also have the courage to tackle life head on and continually pursue new experiences. We should all be able to express ourselves fully and engage with our passions - that's where the beauty of life lies. Of course we should all respect others and work hard for our privileges, but some religions, if not all, rely on coercion, and to me living in the shadow of fear or threats succeeds in doing nothing but dehumanizing an individual. It's easily corruptible, and that's where serious problems arise.

It's interesting that you approach religion from a predominately socio-political perspective, which it is a socio-political convention. I've always found that that particular facet of religion/spirituality to be its most ugly side. Still it's very interesting that you drew both positive and negative aspects from it, which brings about another interesting question: If it is an innate human tendency to create religions, to create Gods, so to speak which I believe it is, what does that tendency represent? Does it represent an intrinsic and valid need of the human organism both on a psychological and a sociological level? If so, how should, or could that need be sated in a secular manner?

Originally Posted by Sneer

I'm prepared to discuss my points in a civil manner, but anybody wanting to get in to some hardcore religious debate can back the **** up.

Believe me, in this thread, that goes without saying, mainly because I already said in not so many words.

[Engine]

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

Obviously, the term religious experience can run the gambit from a profound sense of peace to a mild psychosis, but I have a tough time understanding how a sense of enlightenment should be outright avoided.

I only said that the duplication of a religious experience (or enlightenment although I don't like that term) should be outright avoided. For example, Zen Buddhists like to stare at blank walls for a certain amount of time each day without any reason other than they believe that this may remove them from the natural but unimportant human belief in a "self". Some never have a religious experience but they do it anyway. Others have one. I have no problem with this and I think theirs is a worthy pursuit. However, problems arise when a religious experience (in this specific case the disillusion of a self) is attained and the meditator obsesses on that experience rather than simply experiencing it, appreciating it, learning from it, and then letting it go and moving on with their life.

Why they should let it go is your next question.

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

Is it really the belief that people can and should duplicate previous religious experiences That's responsible for most of the problems that religion has caused in the world? I Would think that designation would go toward intolerance of conflicting lifestyle and point of view, or a desire to impose ones beliefs on others.

Yes, it is the drive to duplicate a religious experience that causes major problems. The intolerance and such is just a symptom of that. The problem arises when a person who has a religious experience feels that they are privy to something very special (which may be true) and that the experience needs to be grasped and held onto. This goes for the individual, let alone the individuals influence on others (i.e. one's teaching that everybody should strive for a particular religious experience that seems correct to them).

I basically feel that religious experiences can be had and appreciated but that it's harmful for a person to turn that experience into a belief even for that person, let alone their influence on others. Beliefs can be dangerous because only reality matters. In other words, have your religious experience if you do, but don't get obsessed by it because doing so inclines one to neglect reality.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

I am an atheist.

You must be intellectually lazy then.

But seriously, I'm an atheist too, and like you I'm of the soft variety of atheist that so many people seem to enjoy misrepresenting. Like everybody else, I do not have absolute knowledge, but what I do understand about the world around me does not seem to point to a god or gods of any kind and I live my life under the assumption that there aren't any.

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

Is it possible to distill the positive aspects of religion/spirituality? To objectively explore spiritual practice as a mental hygiene tool, one that has positive benefits to it's practitioners?

Maybe. The biggest benefit I see to religion is its ability to organize people and create a sense of community. It would be great to be able to use that in a positive non-religious way that manages to remove the us-versus-them mentality that seems to plague religion.

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

Can we come, will we come to an objective understanding of what spirit is and understand it's dynamic?

I think it's sort of a meaningless word to be honest, unless you're just using it as a synonym for moxie or something.

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

When people speak of God, is there something that exists in reality that word points toward, not necessarily an anthropomorphic, autonomous deity, but something else entirely?

Yes. I think when believers say "god" what they are really referring to without realizing it is simply their own internal dialogue. I view prayer as a way of externalizing internal thought processes. For whatever reason that seems to help some people think things through.

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

What do we make of the religious experience? Is it simply a psychological aberration because it's subjective? If it's an induceable state and it brings joy, is that not a strong argument for trying to attain it, or duplicate it?

I don't know that I'd call it an "aberration" since so many people apparently experience it, but I do think it's case of people trying really hard to convince themselves that something is happening. Feeling a sense of joy and wonder at the world around you is great thing that we all should seek to attain but as far as I've seen that's not something religion gives people. Honestly it seems to add more stress to people's lives than anything else.

[SATCHMO]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

You must be intellectually lazy then.

But seriously, I'm an atheist too, and like you I'm of the soft variety of atheist that so many people seem to enjoy misrepresenting. Like everybody else, I do not have absolute knowledge, but what I do understand about the world around me does not seem to point to a god or gods of any kind and I live my life under the assumption that there aren't any.


Maybe. The biggest benefit I see to religion is its ability to organize people and create a sense of community. It would be great to be able to use that in a positive non-religious way that manages to remove the us-versus-them mentality that seems to plague religion.

You see, this is the aspect of religion that I find least appealing. There are other common bonds that one can form a community with other than that of religion. I agree that religion does seem to provide a sense of community among its adherents, but this same aspect also seems to be the foundation of everything that I hate about religion, as you said, the us-versus-them mentality aka the if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us point of view. I guess what I'm really getting at is spiritual practice on a personal level, i.e. prayer, meditation, rituals etc. I have a huge interest in the psychological benefits and potential physical benefits (the practice of meditation has been shown to have a few, along with the obvious stress reduction) that could possibly result from these practices. Is secular, or humanistic prayer possible, or is it a contradiction in terms? There are some people, including myself who believe that prayer is a means of influencing a deeper aspect of our own consciousness which can have a substantial impact on our reality. Others believe certain forms of prayer to be a simple directing of one's intention. I'm not opposed either of those ideas.

Originally Posted by Janzoon

I think it's sort of a meaningless word to be honest, unless you're just using it as a synonym for moxie or something.

I think I asked about the word spirit (spiritual, spirituality) because it's a term that I wrestle with, mainly because when you speaks exclusively in terms of religion, you are speaking of a socio-political convention first, and a codified set of beliefs, or dogma second. when you strip away those two factors you still have the dynamic between the adherent and ultimate reality, be it non-existent or not. You can classify this as being psychology and I would agree, but our current understanding of psychology is one of a closed circuit system that doesn't really leave a lot of room for considering how our thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and intentions affect our reality. To me the term spiritual refers to an energy dynamic between our respective selves and the greater universe, one that our mind can greatly influence, if only to affect our own perception.

Originally Posted by Janzoon

Yes. I think when believers say "god" what they are really referring to without realizing it is simply their own internal dialogue. I view prayer as a way of externalizing internal thought processes. For whatever reason that seems to help some people think things through.

As far as my own personal beliefs go, I disagree, especially in that i believe that one's internal dialogue, or the ego is the diametric opposite of what one could consider to be God, if the term God pointed toward something in objective reality, which is the ego-suspended self, that which lies beneath our internal dialogue when our minds are stilled. I can however understand internal dialogue as a definition of prayer, although I wouldn't agree with that either.

Originally Posted by Janzoon

I don't know that I'd call it an "aberration" since so many people apparently experience it, but I do think it's case of people trying really hard to convince themselves that something is happening. Feeling a sense of joy and wonder at the world around you is great thing that we all should seek to attain but as far as I've seen that's not something religion gives people. Honestly it seems to add more stress to people's lives than anything else.

The few not-so-mild spiritual experiences (much more dramatic than a sense of joy and wonder at the world around me) that I've had I can only describe as very overwhelming and completely free from me wishing them on myself. I , obviously, don't use them as proof that god exists because I understand that what I had done was tapped into a very powerful aspect of my own consciousness. That's really as suitable an explanation as I can give without attributing it to a higher power. They all occurred around 10 years ago, and they also all occurred during a very short-lived phase of my life where I was a practicing evangelical Christian, and they all, with one very minor exception, occurred while I was alone in my own home, Even though they were all immensely euphoric, I could not go back to practicing Christianity, because that would mean pretending to believe something that I did not, but if I could put those experiences in a bottle...

The other aspects of my experience though? Not so much.

[Howard the Duck]

lemme say first - I am a Deist

i think most people here already know I am a Gnostic Christian, yet I don't see science and God as non-magisterial overlaps - to rephrase Dawkins

i appreciate that my Christian experiences may have some scientific reasoning, yet i do not discount that there was a spiritual force behind it

i do not believe in a loving benign God - the evidence around me denies it, there's too much violence and abuse in the world to want to believe in a God that lovingly protects people

in fact, i only believe in a chaotic impartial being at the epicentre of the Universe, where all life originated from, and that Jesus is the loving force, and belief in him will only make him an advocate for you during the Apocalypse's aftermath, as to whether you will end up in Heaven or not

it's somewhat akin to a stern father like in Catholicism, but i would say he's a father that doesn't bother and let you do what you like and only through Christ you are saved

i rebuke against common views of Jesus, and instead believe in the so-called Gnostic Gospels as well (where Jesus is closer to superhuman), those that were dispelled during the Nicene Creed as the "canonical gospel" and i believe in the apocryphal books as well - i have more faith in the Vulgate than the current Hebrew Old Testament

i have doubts about an afterlife, cos all evidence just points to a light switching off when you die - and even if there is one, I will probably end up in Purgatory, cos Jesus can't make a strong enough case for me yet

hope i made sense

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

You see, this is the aspect of religion that I find least appealing. There are other common bonds that one can form a community with other than that of religion. I agree that religion does seem to provide a sense of community among its adherents, but this same aspect also seems to be the foundation of everything that I hate about religion, as you said, the us-versus-them mentality aka the if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us point of view. I guess what I'm really getting at is spiritual practice on a personal level, i.e. prayer, meditation, rituals etc. I have a huge interest in the psychological benefits and potential physical benefits (the practice of meditation has been shown to have a few, along with the obvious stress reduction) that could possibly result from these practices. Is secular, or humanistic prayer possible, or is it a contradiction in terms? There are some people, including myself who believe that prayer is a means of influencing a deeper aspect of our own consciousness which can have a substantial impact on our reality. Others believe certain forms of prayer to be a simple directing of one's intention. I'm not opposed either of those ideas.

I do think humanistic prayer is, while presumably not impossible, certainly pointless. My understanding is that prayer is a way of petitioning a god. If there is no god, then what you are doing is really meditation, not prayer.

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

I think I asked about the word spirit (spiritual, spirituality) because it's a term that I wrestle with, mainly because when you speaks exclusively in terms of religion, you are speaking of a socio-political convention first, and a codified set of beliefs, or dogma second. when you strip away those two factors you still have the dynamic between the adherent and ultimate reality, be it non-existent or not. You can classify this as being psychology and I would agree, but our current understanding of psychology is one of a closed circuit system that doesn't really leave a lot of room for considering how our thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and intentions affect our reality. To me the term spiritual refers to an energy dynamic between our respective selves and the greater universe, one that our mind can greatly influence, if only to affect our own perception.

I guess I'd just call that "psychology". I don't think there's much of what I'd call a dynamic between myself and the universe. I live there, am a part of it and am completely at its mercy. It's really a one-way street kind of relationship.

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

As far as my own personal beliefs go, I disagree, especially in that i believe that one's internal dialogue, or the ego is the diametric opposite of what one could consider to be God, if the term God pointed toward something in objective reality, which is the ego-suspended self, that which lies beneath our internal dialogue when our minds are stilled. I can however understand internal dialogue as a definition of prayer, although I wouldn't agree with that either.

The definition of prayer that I'm using here, like I mentioned above, is petitioning a god. If there are no gods, then I'm not petitioning anyone when I pray and am simply talking to myself. That's why, as an atheist, I view prayer as a way of externalizing an internal dialogue.

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

The few not-so-mild spiritual experiences (much more dramatic than a sense of joy and wonder at the world around me) that I've had I can only describe as very overwhelming and completely free from me wishing them on myself. I , obviously, don't use them as proof that god exists because I understand that what I had done was tapped into a very powerful aspect of my own consciousness. That's really as suitable an explanation as I can give without attributing it to a higher power. They all occurred around 10 years ago, and they also all occurred during a very short-lived phase of my life where I was a practicing evangelical Christian, and they all, with one very minor exception, occurred while I was alone in my own home, Even though they were all immensely euphoric, I could not go back to practicing Christianity, because that would mean pretending to believe something that I did not, but if I could put those experiences in a bottle...

I think maybe I wasn't clear what I was getting at here. I'm not talking about a conscious wish. You mentioned that your experiences all happened when you were an evangelical Christian. I don't think that's a coincidence. It seems pretty likely to me that those experiences came about because of a very Christian desire to feel close to God.

[RVCA]

Before I engage you on this topic Satchmo, you must do two things for me.

-You must clarify more clearly what you mean by "the positive aspects of religion". Eager curiosity? Psychology of the religious experience? What do you actually mean when you reference these things?

-You must present an argument for why it is desirable to pursue these "positive aspects" I just asked you to clarify. Why should I spend time dredging up a counter-argument to an argument that has not been made? Simply saying that religion can bring positive things to the human experience is not enough.