dreamlogic, yeah, I've read some of Kant's theories, which is the place in my brain I was scratching at when writing that post :).

Saje, you'll love 'The God Delusion'. You're mostly agreeing with it already ;).

And while I tend to agree with your assessment that "sense of wonder" is the same as "religious awe/faith" (an idea Dawkins is a big supporter of) on instinct, I can't be 100% sure. The feelings described by some religious people are much more instense than the sense of wonder that drove me to become an astrophysicist (because, honestly, is there a more grand-scale sense-of-wonder inspiring branch of science out there? ;)), so maybe it, in fact, is something different.

But then again, that "intense" feeling (I think) is not what the majority of religious people feel. What the majority feel is probably indeed akin to the "sense of wonder" we feel, just, like you say "mediated through a different belief system".

GVH | August 25, 05:25 CET

Saje, you'll love 'The God Delusion'. You're mostly agreeing with it already ;).

Heh, now i'm wondering if it's worth reading at all then - could've saved my money and just talked to myself for an hour or so (give me a book I want to throw across the room once or twice any day of the week ;).

(and if it's the rainbow thing BTW Dawkins talks about them in a previous book, 'Unweaving the Rainbow', which i've read. Thought it was a very nice example because as he says, you can understand refraction and internal reflection in rain drops but you still appreciate the beauty of a rainbow. So i'm not pre-cognitive or anything, don't panic ;)

And while I tend to agree with your assessment that "sense of wonder" is the same as "religious awe/faith" (an idea Dawkins is a big supporter of) on instinct, I can't be 100% sure.

Well i'm not 100% sure either (despite how I might come across sometimes ;). Might have put that badly actually, maybe "religious awe" sounds more like those very intense, ecstatic experiences folk have (what you might call experiences of "revelation", where they actually commune with God in their opinion). Remember reading that they might be associated with temporal lobe epilepsy but I never followed it up.

But I actually just meant, when people look at the world, are staggered and think "There must be something behind it, something grand". Some stop there, decide that's it there just is something grand behind it, other probe slightly deeper and maybe come to the conclusion that nature (the big nature i.e. the universe) is plenty grand enough. It's natural (literally ;) to feel a need to express your wonder at the world (we do love a good pattern and the world's full of 'em) and even to wish it actually reflected a (comparatively) cosier reality than the one we may be stuck with IMO, everybody wants to feel safe and nobody wants to die forever and ever.

[ edited by Saje on 2008-08-25 15:07 ]

Saje | August 25, 06:06 CET

Usually because whenever religion is mentioned, the discussion gets so far off the beaten track I have to remind myself what the original topic was actually about.

Simon | August 25, 06:18 CET

I really wish I'd had time to jump in on this discussion earlier on. Cheers to all for a truly memorable and fascinating look at this topic (and a peek into your brains) :).

zeitgeist | August 25, 06:22 CET

And good morning, thread! Still alive and kicking, not gone to thread-heaven (or... I suppose the archives are thread-purgatory).

Saje we both finished our last posts on a similar-ish (but totally not!) note:

Sez you:


Sez me:


I have a problem with what you sez insofar as it seems to imply that the atheistic view is a "deeper probing" and religious people are religious mainly out of a need for comfort and a fear of death. Which may in some cases be true of course, and I won't just repeat everything I said earlier, except to say that I think when certain people feel (just do, innately) a kind of presence, something that touches or guides them, connects to them when they pray, they may choose to call it God. I suspect it is a different feeling than a sense of wonder over refraction... atheists and believers alike may feel that, and I have no idea at all what people who speak in tongues feel... but I think that feeling that there is a God is something else. A sense of presence. Maybe. That's all I can come up with. But plenty of science-y types who are very interested in probing deeply into the workings of nature and many people who do not believe in eternal life and many people who don't find the universe, even with a god, in any way a kind or cozy place, nonetheless believe in this force and presence and allow it to be a central guiding point in their lives.

And Kris, you sez:

Well, a lot of people still "bother" to identify with a religion (including people who weren't raised that way). Maybe it's weird of me to bring up my mom again, not sure she'd love me discussing and maybe misrepresenting her faith on the internet... but anyway, she was raised by parents who had nothing but contempt for religion (stupid superstition as her father would have it) and so prayed in secret as a child and as a grown-up she tried out the church. Met with the vicar at one point to discuss her beliefs and whether she belonged in the church, and he was rather shocked by what she told him and said that she absolutely didn't belong in the church. She was upset, didn't go back for years, then found a friendlier church and has been going there for thirty years. Nobody tries to tell her that she isn't a Christian because her God isn't sitting in the sky being all-powerful and making whimsical decisions about whether your pet cat is going to live or die. I don't know exactly why she identifies so strongly with Christianity, but she does. She loves the church she goes to, she loves the community, she loves the stories and the songs that give a structure and an expression to her own deeply held beliefs.

Whatever people feel that makes them identify as "religious" and what they call "God" varies, but the Church is a positive place for a lot of people who believe in God (differently) but are in no way less rational, less intelligent, or even necessarily less skeptical than your average atheist. I don't know if it would really be progress for more people to lose the religious impulse, and I don't think it's going to happen anyway. I think it's a part of being human, probably. Of course, it would be nice if certain people weren't such dicks about their religious beliefs (and the rest of y'all are going to hell!-style) but then it would be nice if certain people weren't such dicks in general. But a lot of people are dicks, and a lot of people are religious, and there's some cross-over there, but I think the sucky thing about those people is that they are dicks, not that they are religious.

Whew. Now that I'm becoming less and less coherent, I'm going to stop!

catherine | August 25, 06:40 CET

Well, Saje, you'll probably still disagree with the amount of leeway he grants science in being able to say meaningfull things about religion. According to him, one can postulate a 'God hypothesis' and reject it (with pretty large odds of being right) with our current scientific knowledge. And while I tend to agree that given a certain basic frame of thinking (using limited definitions of "truth", "reality" etc. and even "God"), atheïsm is the only valid outcome, he's still ignoring other - equally rational, but non-conformitive to his own (and my, and probably your ;)) philosophical leanings - points of view.

zeitgeist, would've loved to hear your thoughts on the matter as well. This has, indeed, been a very enjoyable thread. Here comes the almost-standard self-congratulatory end-of-thread-is-nigh bit ;), but: this is why I love whedonesque. In most places this type of discussion could've gone a completely different way, but here it turned into a friendly exchange of concepts and ideas. Wonderfull. Thanks all!

GVH | August 25, 07:34 CET

Yeah it'll be good when we're sat down there burning away to remember that we were nice heathens - we could give ourselves a pat on the back then but patting and flaying just don't mix ;-).

... people who believe in God (differently) but are in no way less rational, less intelligent, or even necessarily less skeptical than your average atheist.

If I added "in every other part of their life" to that then i'd agree wholeheartedly catherine. Basically, you can't be a rational skeptic about everything and base your fundamental beliefs about the way the world works on a "feeling of a presence" IMO, rational skepticism is all about distrusting that sort of thing to, perhaps sometimes, a damaging extent. Whether it's possible to have the feeling as intensely as some people claim and still doubt it and reason exactly the same as if you didn't I don't know, as far as i'm aware i've never had it ;). As GVH says, once you've gone down the hard-line materialist road, atheism is pretty much unavoidable (i'm not saying it's the right road BTW - though I think it is ;) - it's still an article of faith that the universe works the way it has to work for materialism to make sense, which is to say, there is a real external world, it's consistent in its laws and we can know it, at least to a good approximation, by our senses).

And belief in some kinds of god is incompatible with a rational world view, there're just some things that don't make sense with some Gods in them - not IMO, just according to logic, one of the fundamentals of a rational world view - so how you define god (among many other things) can be extremely important to most religious discussions. I can't refute, for instance, a god that kick started the universe and then left us to our own devices (my instinct is, we don't need to add that sort of god to the universe so why bother creating one but I can't reason against his/her existence, it's utterly unknowable) but I could have a reasonable attempt at at least calling into doubt one that, for instance, allowed evil to occur (as it plainly does) AND was perfect, omnipotent, omni-benevolent and omniscient, which is some folks' idea of the Christian God (in some ways faith is like a scientific theory - if you pull out a foundation stone and follow it through to its logical conclusion then the whole thing sometimes falls apart).

Please, please note though, i'm emphatically NOT saying atheists are better people than the religious, i've met plenty of both that I wouldn't like to be around (and plenty, of both, I would - probably because of self-selection most of my friends are either atheists, agnostics or apathetiests ;) but not all, and not through my deliberate choice).

Saje | August 25, 07:57 CET

I note, I note! I think my brain was wandering off (fingers on keyboard following) when I started rambling about how religious and non-religious types can both be dicks, that was nothing at all to do with the discussion and I didn't at all think anybody was suggesting otherwise. I'm not so good at the focus thing sometimes.

Of course I agree that the idea of God As All-Powerful (and Good!) Creator is incompatible with a logical / rational / scientific understanding of the universe. I'm rather feebly paraphrasing what more-articulate-than-me believers have said to me in long-ago conversations about religion and probably not doing them justice, but among my friends and rellies who do believe in God, I don't think any of them think of God as some kind of omnipotent creator. So yeah, a definition of God would be key, but I'm a little nervous to try and venture a definition on anybody else's behalf... I've been tiptoeing around that with words like "presence" and "force." But OK, more tiptoeing... some kind of presence or consciousness in everything that connects to us and through which we can, perhaps, be better than what we are. Maybe. And while it may not be possible for us to fully understand it, if we feel its presence in us and around us, then we can make the choice to embrace it anyway, to call it God if we want to, and to find a way to live our lives that makes it central, crucial to how we behave. We can choose to embrace the history and stories and songs of people who have felt something similar for millenia. Maybe. So the faith thing, for some, is making the choice to embrace something that we can't know. And so I get what you're saying, that that is by definition not rational, and ... well, yes, you're right about that. And also about this, in a way:

But I don't know if the belief is about "the way the world works" so much as a belief that there is something (god) in the world. Heh. And as for having that feeling and doubting it, I think that's probably the norm. How could you not doubt it? I think doubt and faith are two sides of the same coin, at least for the people I know. They've chosen to be guided by a powerful impulse, and they continue with it because they feel that they are growing and stronger through it, but of course, of course they doubt it and question it all the while.

Anyway, ALL VERY INNERESTING. Sure you don't want to leap in zeitgeist? ;)

catherine | August 25, 09:32 CET

I note, I note!

Thanks, thanks ;).

But I don't know if the belief is about "the way the world works" so much as a belief that there is something (god) in the world. Heh.

Heh indeed ;). Cos of course, the thing is, whether people realise it or not (and my own feeling is, most don't, most people are used to compartmentalising their beliefs so that they don't spill over, it's how we routinely believe mutually contradictory things) accepting "something" in the universe that doesn't obey physical law and can't, even in principle be known is a fundamental belief about how the world works, it's saying that it doesn't run on rational, materialist lines because no universe with something like that in it can.

It really is a bit of an all or nothing situation (much as we might want it to be grey, with room for all comers), either physics describes the universe (not necessarily our physics BTW, we could be wrong about a lot of stuff and very likely are, I mean a physics of some sort i.e. a set of laws which the universe operates according to always) or all bets are off because we don't know the rules, "he" operates in "mysterious ways" - in a universe with "gods" anything can happen, arbitrarily.

That's very far from a comfort to me, quite the reverse in fact, which is probably partly why I initially went down the road I have (which also isn't comforting but at least makes sense, to me ;).

Saje | August 25, 09:58 CET

Aaaand, this thread is still going. Heh :).

Anyway: agreed, Saje, re: what you were saying above. And yet I've also encountered people who will hold that a) reality is not relative (i.e. there is one reality, though at present we may not know it), b) humans are able - by logic and observation - to (slowly) learn to know that reality and that yet, there is still room for an unknowable God because he/she/it is outside of reality, transcends reality. In fact, that's based on a quite popular concept in religious philosphy called transcendence (wikipedia is your friend). I have no problem with transcendence in principle, although - to me - it feels like an "easy way out". And then there's combinations in which God is both above and outside of our phyiscal reality (hello there panentheism, welcome to the table ;)).

But, either way, if holding to a materialist world-view, most people would assume that "reality" is all of reality, including any transcendent aspects (illogical though that may seem, given the definition of 'transcendence'. In fact, I would say that most materialists would not include transcendent "levels" to reality, but instead deny that they (can) exist). What's more, we get a logical contradiction when the "unknowable" God does get to act on our "knowable" reality. Because that's just cheating :p.

Where was I going with this? Ah, yes: I agree with Saje's assertion: "It really is a bit of an all or nothing situation", despite what some (admittedly intelligent ;)) philosophers might want you to believe ;)

GVH | August 25, 10:37 CET

That's interesting re. transcendence, GVH. I've never really heard that idea before.

You may both be right about the all-or-nothing-ness of it... in fact you probably are, because I am very rarely right about anything... but I'm still not convinced ;). I think most edjumicated people believe that the universe "works" (yay universe!) according to laws of physics. If you start talking about a god that operates in mysterious ways and an arbitrary universe in which everything can happen, you're still talking about some omnipotent agent who... does stuff and controls everything. And I may very well be twisting the words of my religious friends and putting my own atheistic slant on their beliefs, but my impression has been that they feel there is a presence of some kind within, I guess, the physics of the universe. Not Zeus making the planets spin in the opposite direction all of a sudden (OK he never did that), but something that feels divine and aware and that we are in some way connected to. Does that need to contradict physics? A god you pray to because it feels instinctive to try to communicate, and this type of expression is... well, meditative, I guess... not because you want this God to smite your neighbor and buy you a Prius and you think that if you ask "him," "he" might help you out. Do you see what I mean? It's not that this god doesn't obey physical laws. It's seeing god within those laws and within everything else too.

I can't really describe how that feels because I've never felt it, but it doesn't require a tremendous imaginative leap to think that I could look out my window and sort of "see god in everything," feel some presence in all of this and want to pray, to reach towards it, to embrace it and find ways of expressing my joy in it (songs and stories). And I can imagine feeling all of that and not having to reject or compromise my belief in the physical laws of the universe. When religious people wonder how atheists can be "moral" or have meaning in their lives, and when atheists wonder how religious people can be rational or scientific in their understanding of the universe and assume that it has something to do with comfort or a fear of death, it always seems to me like a failure of imagination.

So I still see it as a case of "as well as" instead of an "either or" but perhaps I'm really not making sense? I can make a lot of things, but sense isn't always one of them. Ask me for a nice shrimp curry, though, and I can be relied on.

catherine | August 25, 10:43 CET

Ah, yes. "God is everything" is also an often-heard message, and in fact, it's one I'm much more comfortable with. In fact, didn't Einstein subscribe to such a notion of God?

Anyway, the usual "definition" as I've encountered it, is that - in fact - God is literally everything. Not a sentient being, but just reality. God is the plants, the trees, the laws of physics making our universe the way it is, the basic building blocks of reality, time, energy... like I said, literally everthing.

But this, then, gets to a point where things become arbitrary. Us atheïsts also believe that reality exists. We see parts of "everything" all the time and assume it belongs to a knowable whole. And we stick the label "reality" on that, while others may feel the need for more reverence and stick the label "God" on it. But, in the end, "those people", I would say, do not differ much - if at all - from us basic atheïsts. It has become a question of definitions and names even more than it was before.

Although I would then choose to not name "everything" God, because it is confusing. God has certain supernatural connotations to us. And by using this definition of God in language, one is confusing the issue. Maybe they're choosing to stay close to religious language because of cultural or socialogical preferences, or maybe because they honestly believe that "reality" deserves a more "grand" name, but which ever way you turn it, to me it seems like an unecessarily confusing name to use.

But maybe they feel the need to use it, because apart from "everything", God is also more or is in fact an entity. But as soon as one starts ascribing supernatural abilities to God, however carefully one defines him, "all or nothing" starts rearing its ugly head again ;), because of the reasons mentioned in our previous posts and we're back at square one.

GVH | August 25, 11:10 CET

This made me laugh. Yeah, I knew I was tiptoeing awfully close to that particular precipice. But I do think there is a difference between you or me looking at the world and saying "hey, look at all that amazing everything!" and a religious person feeling the presence of god in that everything. Not "God=Reality and it all comes down to whether or not people like going to church". But the sense of a presence or a force or an awareness that we can in some way communicate with, through which we can connect to the universe and become better people and... well, I'm just being repetitive now. Sorries!

You're right though that the distinction, if it's even there, is a thin slice away from making no kind of sense at all (and not even making shrimp curry).

*surrenders, and offers her sword to Saje and GVH*

catherine | August 25, 11:25 CET

I'm not sure I have the time to get into this, to be honest, much as I might enjoy it. Nor, to tell you the truth, am I sure where I would start. I'm fairly sure we would end up talking about things like nondual realization (and probably by necessity monism and other related things) how it (they) relate to subject-object distinction or the lack thereof, prayer/contemplative prayer and meditative practice, enlightenment and levels of conciousness/awareness, the role of ego in all of this, and on, and on and on :). So instead of actually saying anything substantive, I will just list some more things to throw on the fire of this conversation.

However, I would say that just calling everything that is "reality" is missing the point to some extent. Its the connectedness of all of these things being explicitly recognized and/or celebrated that is the important bit for those who subscribe to the various theories of an underlying something. This is still separate from both "reality" and the "concious creator" stuff. Its a tiny hair to split, but I don't believe that its really as insignificant as it seems some folks are ready to write it off as. I feel fairly certain saying its not necessarily either reverence or a need for something bigger that causes people to ascribe a different terminology to it. Although, maybe at heart it is that the terminology used by two extremes is stressing the "wrong" parts to those not at either end. That never happens, right?

That people attempt to communicate with this "force" or "presence" through prayer or other externalized and ritualized communication is very interesting in a number of ways and could lead one to many, many theories about the why and the wherefore. Is it because they believe or need to believe that this "force" or "presence" is better than them -or at least other than them- to rationalize the horrors that sometimes* happen in an imperfect world? Is it just a familiar mode of expression that allows them to strive for a connection they may or may not feel? Is it because some guy long ago confused the trappings of a ritual with direct apprehension of this "presence" or in an imprecise word theophany and they are trying to recapture that through the rituals of prayer and worship services? /shrug

Of course it could all be our need to categorize, classify, etc. biting us in the ass in the biggest way ever. Best joke we've ever played on ourselves, then? We are Loki. Mmmph... need more hours in the day.

*every second of every minute of every day

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-08-25 21:25 ]

zeitgeist | August 25, 11:59 CET

Alright, now that I've killed this thread, I am going to go solve this Russia/Georgia thing.

zeitgeist | August 25, 13:43 CET

Ha! Not killed. Little Japanese boys were teaching me to make origami. Now I have a house full of cranes and doves and dense little paper stars that go really far if you throw them.

If you have time after solving the Russia/Georgia thing (good luck with that, BTW) I would like to hear more about what you think prayer is all about. And maybe an expanded version of paragraph 1, which left me with a little bit of "huh?" ;). I find prayer truly fascinating, and I have felt the impulse to pray (the interpretation of it that make most sense to me is that it's a "familiar mode of expression" as you say, words being what we most often use to communicate with), but since ultimately I don't believe in any kind of god, it's really just me talking to myself and pretending that I'm not, which, hm, not so fulfilling. Then again I suck at meditating, too, and just feel like I'm sitting still trying not to think too much and breathing deeply, and that's fine, but it usually feels kind of like a waste of time. Obviously, I'm not doing it right.

In other words... I have nothing left to say but I want to be the thread-killer! No, you kill it. Split some tiny hairs! More, more!

catherine | August 25, 14:14 CET

There is nothing inherently incompatible between, no essentail and categorical incocnsitency, between believing ina personal omnipotent and eternal God -with-a-capital-G-in-the-Westerrn-sense and believing the universe is an ordered and rational place.

That's simply what the universe is, that's how it operates. What anyone believes to be beyond that doesn't change the character of said "that."

And even miracles aren't a problem. A miracle is a singular event. If every natural factor were known it would be inexplicable, but by definiton not evry factor can ever be known so the event can always be called coincidence or some such. And once it happens, it's over, the universe just goes on afterwards.

Seems simple logic to me; things exist in their own terms and in their own bailiwicks, and to me the universe is just another thing. If you don't see anything beyond it, you don't. If you do, you do

DaddyCatALSO | August 25, 15:43 CET

I'm sorry, DaddyCatALSO, but I don't think I'm getting what you mean. I'll take a stab at replying to your post anyway, however, but feel free to tell me I was missing the point you were trying to make (and if I'm less clear than before, that's just because it's very late here and I should go to sleep soonish ;)).

I agree that something beyond "the universe" or "reality" unable to influence said reality, does not change it. This is why I have no "problem" with transcendence, although I feel like it's an easy way out.

It's just that the "unable to influence" bit is not something most religions transcribe to. Some religious people, probably, but not the religions as a whole. God has influence on our every day life, and as such it influences reality beyond, say, the laws of physics. This - for me, as a traditional rational materialist believing in things like a knowable universe which can be described by logic and discovered by observations - is a problem. Because the "unknowable" God is influencing our nice and knowable universe.



Well, this would depend on your definition of "problem". Is there an a priori problem with miracles? Of course not. Is there an inconsistency with believing in a rational, ordered and knowable universe, then yes. The problem here being that miracles - depending on ones definition - are either a) unknowable or b) knowable products of an unknowable force.

Simply saying they're "coincidence" is not enough: if there is an entity guiding this coincidence, then why would the effect of that entity be unknowable, while the thing it is influencing is knowable?

Also, zeitgeist wrote (see, you didn't kill the thread ;)):



Yes, I see what you're getting at. And I agree that there is a distinction to be made there. But... if you ascribe more to God than just simply reality, if you're assuming a meta-reason for the things being as they are, we have a new "problem". At least with reconciling it with a traditional materialist way of thinking (which is what we were talking about upthread). Because this "meta-reason", the connection between all that is "reality" can then either be:

1) placed outside of reality, as something unknowable to man. This is hard to accept from a rational/material way of thinking, because this unknowable "something" hás influenced the knowable reality. In fact, it has shaped its very form. I'd even go so far as to say that if we can't know the "meta-reason", we don't actually quite know the universe at all. Which is an acceptable outcome, except if your starting point is the assumption that said universe is knowable.

2) Placed inside of reality. But now we have a logical contradiction, because this meta-reason would dramatically increase the information density of the universe. In fact, the information density would explode exponentially, because this "meta-reason" contains all the information of "reality", but is also inside of reality and, well ... kaboom :). And I'm not even mentioning the fact that by placing it inside of reality, it is now a part of reality (and knowable) and as such is no longer even a "meta-reason" at all, which places us back at "God is reality".

So, in closing, it's not that such a world view as "God is reality plus some extra undefined thing" is not a relevant and even logically/rational way of seeing things... it's just that it's not an option if you're following the rationalist/materialist (I'm starting to wonder if these terms are entirely philosophically correct, but I assume we all understand what we're talking about when mentioning them) aproach. Then, whichever way you turn it, we come back to what Saje eloquently called "It really is a bit of an all or nothing situation" :). And in the end, using said world view as a starting point, atheïsm is the only logical and consistent end point.

[ edited by GVH on 2008-08-26 01:52 ]

GVH | August 25, 16:50 CET

Won't tackle all that at the moment, GVH, 'cause I've got to prep for tomorrow (having been a lazy bum all day spending way too much time on da internet) but two quick things:

First, very impressed at that elegant piece of writing at almost 2 a.m. (in not-your-first-language, no less, though I'm assuming you've been discussing philosophical questions in English from the age of three or so). Second, I see the "contradiction" you were calling me out on earlier upon re-reading. It was me being really unclear basically. When I said that I thought "rationality had nothing to do with it" I didn't mean that the religious impulse was not rational (though, OK, it isn't) but that I didn't think "rational vs. irrational" was particularly relevant to the question. I figure you can have a "rational" world-view or an "irrational" one, but that that wouldn't necessarily affect whether or not you would feel this religious impulse, or the degree to which you would respond to it. Just to clarify what I meant to say earlier--already nicely refuted by y'all, so I don't mean to take the discussion back several steps. Ready to talk about monism and non-dual realization! Starting with--whassat??

You know, I think the nearest point for all of us to meet would be smack in the middle of the North Atlantic... well, maybe the Azores, since land is a bonus. I'll bring the shrimp curry, GVH can bring some vodka, zeitgeist can bring sherbet and a few mint leaves with which to make a vodka-dessert, DaddyCatALSO can bring the coffee for when we've had too much vodka & sherbet, and Saje can bring the chocolate-covered physics (or physics-covered chocolate? either way, I hear you yourself are covered in one or the other or both so it should be easy to bring). 'kay?

catherine | August 25, 18:39 CET

Oh, please - how naive do you think we are? If we had a nickel for every time we heard that, to quote Parker-Stone "we'd have a sh!tload of nickels". I kid :). A lot of what I am talking about in paragraph one derives partially from Buddhist traditions, also Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Aurobindo, and partially from some of what Ken Wilber's writings on what he calls Integral Philosophy are about. There are also threads of this within Mystical Christianity, like that of Meister Eckhart (who was tried as a heretic, by the way :)). The nondual realization stuff I refer to is about a realization that there we are all one thing, all part of a larger reality/spirit/universe that is not as separate as it seems. So much so that there is no separation between subject and object, that the individual is largely a construct of ego. Meditation and contemplative prayer (which is kind of like meditation for people who don't believe in meditation) are tools to break down that ego and submit to either (in the case of meditation) the realization of oneness that lies beyond it and thus to achieve enlightenment or (in the case of contemplative prayer) to submit to the Greater Power (which you are a part of, but perhaps not in the more Buddhist sense). The joke, as they say, is that no one experiences enlightenment; simply put, when enlightenment is realized, the ego that sought it is dissolved in it. By necessity some of this is very abbreviated, its interesting to check out, though. It's always been part of a vast and interesting subject matter to me.

GVH - Its certainly an all or nothing situation for people who subscribe to the theory that it has to be all or nothing ;).



Exactly. Sort of ;). There is tons of information that can be stored in quantum states, right? Does it need to be a meta-reason? The reason itself being coded into reality does make it "God is reality", but some might feel that that simplifies it in ways that require further (sometimes elliptical seeming) explication. Does it really add to the amount of information if each part of reality stores information only about itself and that it is part of one larger "reality"/essence? And if itself is really an illusion of sorts doesn't that just mean that God is reality and no separate meta-reason is necessary? It just is. Is is all we are. As it were.



p.s. - catherine, for more on how monism (the concept of "one essence") fits into this, see also Advaita (non-dualist) Vedantism.

zeitgeist | August 25, 18:45 CET

*head explodes*

catherine | August 26, 04:40 CET

Nor, to tell you the truth, am I sure where I would start.

"In the beginning ..." ;-)

The "reality is information" idea is gaining a bit of traction in the last few years and the idea that things both store and are their own information doesn't seem bonkers to me, I just don't see what that says about an over-arching non-specific "force" (or a specific god) that's separate from physical laws. And "Is is all we are" is about as nice a short-hand for materialism as you'll find I reckon ;).

Its the connectedness of all of these things being explicitly recognized and/or celebrated that is the important bit for those who subscribe to the various theories of an underlying something. This is still separate from both "reality" and the "concious creator" stuff.

Unsurprisingly, i'm more or less with GVH on this I think ;). Surely it's that connectedness being recognised as separate that's important to those subscribers ? Everything in a materialist universe is also connected at the most fundamental level because everything operates according to the same laws, the connectedness is inherent, so I don't really "get" the distinction. Materialism, if it can be said to celebrate anything at all, celebrates reality above all other things - because no other things are above reality (and by "reality" I don't mean just the "stuff" that's in the universe, I mean the totality of everything, including the rules via which "stuff" happens and the interconnections between different "stuff" - they're not separate from reality as I see it, why would they be ?).

Personally I don't have much (if any) of an issue with religions/philosophies that don't ascribe conscious awareness, intent or interference in the world to their "force" (i'm pretty ignorant about buddhism etc. though, maybe they do actively interfere ?) because I don't really see how that can be tested, it's as unknowable as the "kick-start creator" in that reality would be the same either way, only our attitude towards it differs and, it being unprovable, the only objection we're left with is Ockham's Razor (which is more of a procedural guideline than a hard and fast law).

Taoism with its "way" for instance could be seen as "just" being the unfolding of physical processes but combined with a particular approach/attitude of co-existence/harmony with those processes rather than railing against them. In the West at least, we're taught from an early age to value our individuality maybe above all other things and maybe that ingrains a prejudice that "we" are totally separate from the world around us (including other people) when in fact it may well be more of a sliding scale, things might blend together (across space and time) more than we're used to thinking they do.

Saje | August 26, 05:35 CET

Hey!

This made Fox News.

Simon | August 26, 05:55 CET

GVH catherine : I tried to explain things a little too much, sorry.

I simply am personally convinced that there is a bigger reality beyond what we can evern measure or calcualte, and part of that to me is bleieving God-with-acapital-G exists. It's just a matter of, well, a graphic illustration. Take evrything that cna ne ratioanlly discovered, then draw a circle around that. Then visualize more circles around that, each bigger and bigger.

As for miracles, well, Is ee it as simple, altho not really a s simple as I'm going to describe it here :-). God can directly manipulate the results of Action X. because of His transcendatn nature, He can do this without permanently altering the rules which would normally determine the outcome. And, once the changed outcome occurs, the universe just goes merrily onward with oen little thing different from what it otherwise would have been.

DaddyCatALSO | August 26, 06:34 CET

To my way of looking at it, its not necessarily separate from physical laws. Is is all we are is a shorthand for both materialism and nondual realization both. They really aren't that far apart. One is just a little more concerned with the spiritual and philosophical ramifications of that than the other.



That's the thing, really. Its not that they are different. Its down to angles of vision I reckon, really. As I said above, materialism doesn't necessarily tend to spend great amounts of time pondering the ramifications of this connectedness on a spiritual and philosophical level, just on a physical (as in material and as in physics) level.

Buddhism lacks an absolute creator/God, by the way, so there is no worry about the conciousness of this connected "one" reality. Another important concept in Buddhism is the Middle Way or Third Path, referring to a path of non-extremism and taking the middle ground between all things, denying all dualities; so its also a good explanation for nirvana which is the realization that all things are one and that all dualities are inherently false. Buddhism looks on itself as a philosophy and a way of life, not as much as a religion. Its not about worshipping anything, its about becoming in touch with the the ultimate nature of all things and doing no harm. See also the Eightfold Path.

Taoism actually has a lot to do with nondual realization. People mistake the yin and yang for opposites when they are really just complementary parts of one nondual whole. Taoism or wu (not) wei (doing) implies action without an actor, which sounds pretty much nondual to me.

zeitgeist | August 26, 09:16 CET

Yeah, that tallies with my (very) limited understanding of taoism too, the idea seems to be that through Non-action comes right-action i.e. the action most in accordance with the Way, which is kind of like how planets orbit a sun in that that's the straight path for them, it just looks curved because of the shape of space-time - enlightenment is about, basically, "cooling your jets" ;) i.e. not doing anything artificial to disturb your natural inclination to follow the curves.

My only issue with stuff like the "third way" (apart from Tony Blair having forever polluted that phrase ;) is surely you need an awareness of the wrong or extreme positions in order to plot a course between ? I.e. once we all realise there are no "ends" of the spectrum, that that's a false notion, is it like taoism in that you just will follow that path because "realisation" basically is following the path (or at least being in a mental state such that path following is the logical next step) ? Or are we screwed because we've lost the reference points we need for bearings ?

And, obviously, as a good materialist i'm inclined to be suspicious of my internal state (I could probably just stop there ;) as any indication of what's actually "out there" anyway (in that sense "nondual realisation" might not be incompatible with materialism but it seems to be incompatible with being a materialist because the distinction between inner and outer seems essential to that way of thinking - the universe just is in both but when you throw us into the mix it gets more complicated. Same old, same old ;).

*trundles off to google more about non-dual realisation*

Saje | August 26, 11:29 CET

Sorry, started to reply much earlier and was dragged away. You've pretty much answered your own question in any case :) You may be inclined to be suspicious of your internal state, but any good nondualist will tell you, that's the ego getting in the way of enlightenment.

zeitgeist | August 26, 14:08 CET

Yeah, that makes sense (that a nondualist would say that I mean ;). It's attractive in some ways but i'm pretty attached to my individuality (such as it is ;), seems like it'd be tough to give up (assuming I don't give it up in the same way I embrace determinism i.e. accept it as probably true and then spend the rest of the time in denial ;). Certainly bears more consideration anyway.

Saje | August 26, 15:00 CET

This conversation got way over my head way fast (wikipedia patiently holding my hand as I tried to keep up).

I'm guessing most people who take a more "scientific" (maybe materialist? but I don't want to start bandying around terminology that I don't understand properly) view of the world would find Buddhism (in its more abstract "practice-based" forms, maybe) less problematic than religions that are centered around a something called God. If you don't have to "believe" in anything that conflicts with (or just isn't supported by) what you can know / experience, it allows you to respond to the spiritual / religious impulse without any discomfort. In any case, I think people who experience that impulse need to find some way of responding to it or expressing it. But even while I think there is really something to it, I tend to feel, like Saje, that I'm fond of my individuality / separateness (imaginary though it might be!) and even my puny angst and suffering. Even though it makes so much more sense, even though it's ultimately a more powerful idea, it doesn't have the emotional resonance (for me) of Christianity. Connecting to something bigger, yay. Becoming One with the Big One, eek. In the end I do neither, just fritter away hours on the internet.

So anyway... we've all agreed that Buffy is responsible for women leaving the Church of England in droves, then?

catherine | August 26, 16:20 CET

I'm very attached to my individuality, too :). But this subject matter is going to make a great concept album for Murder Rubicon.

zeitgeist | August 26, 16:58 CET

Aaand, this thread is still here and active after being away for a day (was busy interviewing some experts for the popular science article on tornado's I'm writing and after that some friends received their master's degree in astrophysics today, so I'm just back from a party. 3:50 is not too late to post in a thread such as this, right? ;)).

First of all: thanks for the kind words upthread, catherine! :)

Secondly: non-dualism is blowing my mind. Not in the good way, either. Because isn't non-dualism the opposite of, say, dualism, which means that if non-dualism is correct, that non-dualism is, in fact, not correct and just an extreme end of a spectrum? And wouldn't that self-contradiction make the theory implode? Or perhaps it doesn't, because contradition/support is a false dichotomy and in fact, things can't contradict or support each other? The mind boggles, honestly :).

It also seems to have some funny consequences apart from what I mentioned above. Because, if matter/mind is a false dichotomy, then reality-outside-of-mind (the reality we "observe" as being outside of our mind) would blend with reality-inside-of-mind, meaning what exactly? That reality is an illusion? That the mind has influence on matter? Something else completely? Can anything follow from anything else logically, anyway, because logic and illogic is the same thing? Again, mind = blown.

So, it's obvious that I can't quite wrap my head around it, but apart from the nice problem Saje described having with the Third Way (a problem which I share), the problems actually seem bigger. Dichotomies are everywhere and this seems to suggest all of them are false. So whichever way I think about it, the theory seems to contradict itself by saying any dichotomy I can think of is false and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Why the assumed contradiction? Because dichotomies are made by language, not by science, and the dichotemies themselves are not all seperate concepts. There's no nice middle-line with one extreme of all dichotomies on one side and the other extreme on the other, clearing a nice Third Path in between. No, these dichotomies are "all over the place", so to speak. I'm pretty sure - if I thought long and hard enough - I could come up with two mutually exclusive "mid-points" between two dichtomies that cannot both be the "true path". Which means it's full of contradictions. Which may not be a problem, if you decide it's not, but still.

In fact, what I feel the end result of this theory, when followed to its "logical" conclusion can only be (and I'm going on instinct here, I've not done any thought experiments or read-up on the philosophy), is a very largescale relativity to everything. There is no "one" truth, or "one" bit of knowledge, etcetera. Nothing is sure and nothing can ever be sure. But then, wikipedia tells me the logical endpoint is an Everything(/Reality/The Void/Several-Other-Important-Sounding-Terms ;)) and then I'm confused.

So, from my point of view (as someone who has not heard about this particular concept very often before, as I'm not that well-versed in Buddhism) this theory (and possibly Buddhism at large?) seems full of "holes" (which could very possibly be caused by my lack of understanding). Of course, these "holes" may not be a problem if you decide they're not (if the universe doesn't need to be logically consistent). But for me, personally, they would pose a problem.



I would disagree with that. In fact, science ponders a lot about the connectedness on a philosophical level. The Theory of Everything, for instance, is both an inspiring and I would say almost spiritual quest for many physicists. As for "spiritual", that's a word that is both too broad and too incompatible with what we're talking about here. It is too broad, because the word spiritual, when used in conversation, can mean too many things. Is it inspiration by supernatural sources, for instance? Because in that case: no, materialism doesn't spend much time being "spiritual" because it denies anything being supernatural. Is it self-reflection, focussing on one's own, let's say, spirit? In that case, I'd say self-reflection and self-questioning attitudes are a big part of materialism. Or is it something else completely?

Wikipedia appears to give a more usual non-colloquial definition, but this then gives rise to the incompatibility I mentioned. They say spirituality is:



Which would seem both incompatible with materialism, but also incompatible with what you were saying (the "you" here being zeitgeist, but hopefully by this point in my post, that was already clear ;)), making this:



an apparent self-contradiction. Because spirituality, by definition, focusses on what's "outside" of reality, outisde of "all we are".

DaddyCatALSO, I get what you're saying. It is one of the many viewpoints we've discussed in this thread. But, as you'll notice, there's other ways of looking at this problem. In fact, almost everyone here joining this conversation seems to look at it another way. I'm not saying that to imply that "you're wrong and "we" are right ("we" don't even all agree after all ;))", just to point out that it's not as cut-and-dry, as your comment makes it look.

Like I said before, I have no problem with a transcendent God, a priori (apart from me thinking it an "easy way out" and wondering why one would assume a transcendent God anyway, as we don't "need" Him to explain anything because of that very transcendence). But what I do have a problem with - like I said upthread somewhere - is a transcendent (i.e. unknowable) God doing things inside of reality, which is knowable.

You say that because God is transcendent, the universe apparently organises itself in a way to make the source of the divine action unknowable. My questions would be: why and how. How can a God get any meaningfull 'results' from his knowable actions, if they can never point at a source (hard luck for all you intelligent design people out there: you can't see the creator's hand or even know he's there at all because He is transcendent/unknowable ;)). It seems to me to be an almost unholdable position, from a logical standpoint. That may not be a problem, if you don't feel the universe has to conform to our sense of logic (a reasonable position, but not one I would share). But in your previous post you seem to imply that you do subscribe to the idea that the universe can be both logical and "contain" (wrong word for that here, but there you go ;)) a transcendent God and miracles we can see happen. Which, to me, would seem irreconcilable.

Which brings me to my "why" question raised above. Why think up such an elaborate scheme if it's on shaky logical ground already and if it's not even needed to explain anything to begin with? It seems an unusual choice to me. But, then again, that's just my inner materialistic atheïst speaking ;).

ETA: some semblance of sense.

[ edited by GVH on 2008-08-27 03:27 ]

GVH | August 26, 18:09 CET

See, zeitgeist made all our heads explode! And now he and Saje are off working on the concept album with the rest of the band...

catherine | August 26, 19:17 CET

No, because non-dualism transcends and includes dualism. To quote a friend of mine who is a buddhist singer-songwriter - "Good and bad are empty names, opposites are all the same. Even the Devil is God." As for your second paragraph, I can only chuckle. Philosophical concepts can be inherently hard to explain things with words sometimes and I am nothing but an interested party to the discussion not a master of all these concepts, so you'll have to read on to decide whether there is inconsistency or other problems with any of these theories. I imagine someone would've found them in thousands of years of examining and refining/redefining the philosophy of the thing, however. Or maybe just explained them in ways acceptable to them within the context of their own philosophy. Maybe materialism is concerned with spiritual connection as I mean it - self-reflection being an important part, and also the connectedness of all things. However, in the context of the philosophical traditions I mention it does often have connotations of a larger conciousness/awareness, to greater or lesser extents. Its hard to lay blanket statements that cover all of the traditions I bring up as they can be contradictory on some points.



See, here's a problem. I think spirituality, by definition, focuses on whats inside all of us (and thus reality) and that that spirituality is primarily concerned with the connectedness of whats inside of "all we are". Another problem is that I don't think that even Wikipedia's definition necessarily reads the way that you read it. Being "beyond both time and the material world" can be translated to be - spirit, that which connects us all, which is timeless and eternal and also that beyond the material world may be the immense landscape of that internal spirit. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to show Saje where the kettle is discuss kettle work for the new album with our brewmaster and also work on my middle class Paisley accent.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-08-27 05:24 ]

zeitgeist | August 26, 19:45 CET

He doesn't know where the kettle is? He's supposed to be the tea-maker--it says so on my tea-shirt. You don't want this kind of thing getting out or your reputation will be shot. It's like saying, "oh, I just have to show Eric Clapton how to tune his guitar." I'd edit it out quick if I were you.

Heh. I refuse to leave the party, in spite of my 'sploded head.

catherine | August 26, 19:56 CET

:) I meant to imply that he was visiting my house and had no earthly idea where my new kettle was. He's not a psychic tea brewer... or is he?!!?!

I just said that to make a "f*cking psychic house hunters" sideways reference. As readers of our first tourbook are aware, Saje instinctively knows the location of any kettle in a radius of several hundred yards. He has a real talent and is an invaluable part of the Murder Rubicon family. Just wait til you see smell? taste? what he's brewed up now.

zeitgeist | August 26, 20:04 CET

I'm just sayin'... the man ought to be able to find a kettle, new or old, wherever he's visiting, and you don't want people to start saying otherwise right before the 2009 reunion tour. Think about it.

catherine | August 26, 20:12 CET

I've edited my previous posts to make sure that everyone realized that I was being facetious with regards to Saje's unsubstantiated unearthly uncanny unctuous (what?) singular talent. Which isn't to say he only has one talent, but that the one talent to which I am referring is, in point of fact, quite impressive.

zeitgeist | August 26, 20:31 CET

I've been laughing at that for about ten minutes now!

catherine | August 26, 20:43 CET

Heh, nice one zeitgeist ;). 'Tis true though, mine armies are the kettles and the teaspoons and the leaves of the trees, bow before my might and tremble ! And err, one lump or two ?

OK, my entire world-view has just come crashing down as I realise that my own transcendent tea making ability is actually a fatal counter-argument to materialism. Bugger.

Saje | August 27, 01:24 CET

GVH: Oh yeah, I don't reallye xpect to convince anybody. My approach was even too cut-and-dried for my daughter to get any real comfort from. I just tend to get my abck up when anybody talks about "proving" any such over-riding worldviews. (and I'm singularly unimpressed by such ID as I've read, altho I've only read the politicos, nto the serious scientists.)

DaddyCatALSO | August 27, 04:26 CET

Hoist by his own teaspoon, ladies and gentlemen. Well, look on the bright side, Saje. Your post is also humorously transcendental, like a TARDIS of funny. It contains more laughs on the inside than seem possible from the outside.

zeitgeist | August 27, 04:35 CET

Ah, yes, Saje, that can suck. But hey, we'll always have thread 17378!

Also, zeitgeist, you are - of course - right. It's obvious I don't understand non-dualism a bit, yet. That's why I mentioned that as a distinct possibility in my post, because I do imagine people would've found these inconsistencies or explained them away in the many, many years this line of reasoning has been "out there" ;).

But since I usually don't have much trouble grasping new philosophical concepts, it worries me I might never actually get it and it made me wonder if logic is actually a necessary part of it to begin with (yes, I'm that arrogant ;)). But I understand you're not a master of these concepts either. So, just to be clear: I wasn't asking you to answer all my questions there. I was just kinda... throwing my questions out there :). Anyway, I do find the concept interesting (and I hate not understanding anything), so I'll be reading up on it.

DaddyCatALSO, I don't think any of us were talking about "proving" a world-view. In fact, I think all of us here were working from the assumption that all these world-views are equal, but examining them and pinpointing the areas where they contradict each other, i.e. learning to recognise the places where one has to make a choice to follow one type of philosophy or another, is interesting because from that, you learn. And from seeing why people make certain choices while others make different ones, you learn more about people.

I would never go about proving my world-view as "the correct one". I would go about explaining it, and maybe even trying to convince someone if it turns out we're working from the same set of philosophical definitions. But that's about it.

(and also, yikes, look at me getting all serious again while this thread has returned to the whedonesque land-of-funny... please feel free to continue ;))

GVH | August 27, 04:41 CET

Hehe! :) I didn't mean to come off the way I may have in my "well, someone would've figured it out" line. Not really the tone I was going for, thanks for taking it in good spirits. I completely understand. Love that you are here throwing your questions out there and I am happy to do my best to answer them or at least throw more questions out in response. This whole thread has been one of those delightful things that happen here. Do people elsewhere get to have these brilliant side discussions on the nature of reality? I mean, I bet the Losties could get into it, but :)



Zing!!! :)

zeitgeist | August 27, 04:51 CET

It contains more laughs on the inside than seem possible from the outside.

It's also (barely) held together with bits of string so that's a pretty apt analogy ;).

I just tend to get my abck up when anybody talks about "proving" any such over-riding worldviews.

That's possibly to me (indirectly) so ... Some definitions of God can be called into serious question using logical arguments DaddyCatALSO (your ideas about miracles have problems from that perspective for instance, as GVH has pointed out), that might be hard to accept but it's still true so long as you agree that logic applies to God. That isn't just an atheist perspective BTW, it's well known among theologians and philosophers of religion, many of whom even believe in God ;).

For instance, say a god is perfect - perfection cannot, by definition, be improved, right ? So how can that god have wants and desires or even new ideas ? How can they change in any way except by becoming less perfect and so less godlike ?

Our words and definitions might not be up to describing a god you say (and that makes sense to me) but then NO description of such a god using our words and definitions would have any meaning, they just wouldn't apply to such a being, making them essentially completely unknowable. Which means we can't possibly know if they're omniscient or perfect or all-loving, so we shouldn't make such claims.

If logic doesn't apply to such a god (also possible I guess, certainly for a transcendental god) then why not have free-will AND disallow evil choices ? As far as i'm aware, the best defence for the "problem of evil" is 'free-will' i.e. it's our capacity to choose freely that means God's hands are tied (and that's why "he" lets bad things happen in the world). But free-will AND being prevented from evil choices are only mutually exclusive because of logic, in a reality where it doesn't apply and for a god not bound by it then both at the same time are entirely possible. Otherwise we're left with the "problem of evil" again which doesn't seem consistent with a god that's all-loving.

(and of course, God created us with free-will, he surely must've seen this coming ? ;)

None of this is new to me BTW, it's been debated (often - maybe mostly - by believers like e.g. Aquinas) for centuries and the arguments are all there, laid out in books for anyone to read and contemplate (i've enjoyed 'The Puzzle of God' by Peter Vardy and 'An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion' by Brian Davies).

[ edited by Saje on 2008-08-27 14:33 ]

Saje | August 27, 05:32 CET