romansh

Here's a quote that sort of intrigues me: The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other.Kurt Gödel

Don't know what's up with Paul ... he seems to be not around much. I am well.

Hi Tariki 🙂

Humanist 4 I am beginning to find him a little repetitive. Though this bit was interesting ... a glimpse under the Vatical veil It would seem that all the colonels etc. seem to have some suasion.

Jordan is bit of a pariah in some circles. Stephen I always find a delight. It's a bit long, but I think worth it.

Hi David ... any update on the outcomes of the discussions?

Supposedly by Alan Watts. I have not been able to verify. But the quote has an interesting point to make regardless whoever said it.

This is interesting ... from a scientific point of this does not seem true. From a logical point of view, it certainly does not seem to make sense. Biblically, the Bible is more or less silent on the topic of free will. Though Christian apologists will quote lots of scripture that says we make choices. The topic of free will is not about choices, but our wills certainly affect the choices we do make. Of course without free will, the Biblical salvation story we are told makes no sense. To believe in free will we have to deny cause and effect and think of ourselves as a God.

Welcome Lily I presume you are in Canada... I'm in southern rural BC. I also presume you are familiar with Gretta Vosper ... she is featured here as an author.. I have seen/heard her speak, she seems eminently sensible to me.

Humanist 3 Here Gulley ponders what the most dangerous day in history was. An interestingly line of thinking: Now of course if we take a look at this question through my world view ... any particular day is simply the sum of all the antecedent days. And here we just draw an arbitrary line in the sand and give it special significance. But in this particular example Gulley almost takes an atheistic point of view to the question. Interesting. Don't particularly agree with 2) but we certainly have developed the concept of right and wrong. Also while we are self aware, I would argue this self awareness is incredibly limited and it is this limited self awareness is from where our feeling of free will stems. Hmmn ... when my football team loses I am unhappy ... the opposing team is being immoral? But to be fair to Gulley, this is a consequentialist argument that many non believers will go for. So where would we but Ukraine fighting back? Is this moral and should we worry about it being moral? In Rex Weyler's book The Jesus Sayings, Weyler suggests that one of the few lines we can can reliably ascribe to Jesus is to not trust those that speak for God. Here I tend to agree with Gulley, though the actual thing that is dangerous is believing someone is actually speaking for God. Also, I would argue that we not trust anyone who does not take a slightly agnostic stance on life, universe and everything. By all means we can argue passionately for a particular point of view.

A bit like Humanist/2 Unfathomable, and yet in the rest of the essay Gulley begins to fathom it? Obviously this fathoming requires a lot of education, experimentation and verification never mind hard work. Generally I agree with Gulley's sense of awe (I am presuming here). I have that sense of awe too. For me awe, is what passes as spirituality. The question I would like to ask Gulley, Why do we have to filter this through the lens of Christianity? OK, I suspect Gulley being a Quaker might quietly answer, We don't. Having said that, that to reach his "audience" (wrong word) he has to use this particular lever. Paul ... have you sent Phil Gulley a link to these discussions?

Well .. have sort of being saying this for awhile ... have I not? There is no inductive "proof". All we can do is postulate and find corroborating or conflicting evidence. So without giving us any of the "Properties of God®" then this line of thought are empty calories. Sounds good, but a waste of time. I think Gulley is accurate on the evolution/awareness bit, but Gulley here begs the question. He is assuming right and wrong exist in the their own right. But this alleged God in Genesis 3 counsels us not to think in terms of right and wrong. Well here at least Gulley defines by what means by moral, and it is similar to the way many secularists might define morality. Philosophically it might be labelled Consequentialism. I think Consequentialism might be a good rule of thumb, but then there is the Buddhist line of thought, life is suffering. And the Campbellian observation, You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation. And here Gulley seems to beg the question that we want to live a life where there is no evil or suffering? Just as a style suggestion I would provide a link to Gulley's piece and highlight a few bits and comment on them.

Phil Gulley I presume? He seems to be writing to a certain religious demographic. This is the basis for an old joke: Parable of the drowning man. A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe. "Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast." "No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me." Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat. "Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute." Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through." After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone. "Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance." Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him. And, predictably, he drowns. A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?" God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

In my experience ... as a mod/admin, this is not really an issue ... unless we are hosting a lot of trolls (we're not). And most people are good about it. I would guess there are some global settings somewhere? Thanks anyway.

Is there any chance of extending the editing time on posts?

Was Jesus a humanist? Humanism in its modern form no doubt overlaps with the more liberal aspects of many religious traditions. I have mentioned Robert Wright's Evolution of God where religions go through cycles and gods are perceived as conservative (retributive) in difficult times and liberal (accepting) in good times. Was Jesus a Christian? That some people apparently thought (and still do) he was anointed in some meaningful way does not make him so. I have no problem of cherry picking the best bits (things that actually make sense) from religious traditions around the world. But when it comes to God? I have no need of that theory, apologies to Laplace. I still argue it makes sense to be looking around the world and how it ticks and basing our principles (humanistic or otherwise) on our understanding and not some potentially outdated tradition that is not subject to revision. As to God ... I like Campbell's take on this But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

Welcome ... from a not so distant place (assuming you are American). Tying religiosity to politics seems an particularly American trait. I am reminded of a passage of passage I read, sorry I can't a reference, but it was of Winston Churchill explaining politics to a post war President (rich I know) ... It went along the lines, "In the US you have two parties: The Republicans, they're conservative; and Democrats and they're conservative too. In Britain we have two parties, Labour Party, they're socialist, and the Conservative Party and they are socialist too." Now as for Christianity, for me there's what Jesus apparently preached ... definitely left leaning from what I have read. And there's how it is practiced today, particularly in the States. Definitely right leaning from my perspective. Enough ... look forward to discussing your point of view.

Good ... Paul you have interpreted this correctly: the logic is correct but the premises are debatable if not flat out wrong, especially the first. There is no interpretation of the logic, it is either correct or not. We may not have skill to interpret the logic and say "don't know", but I don't think we should be reduced to a "thormas like" it's your opinion. It's not a question of interpreting the logic, but more a case of the premises (statutes, precedent, constitution in this case) what do they say? Having said that in the case of the four-legged dog, it's not up to the supreme court judges to debate whether dogs do in actual fact have four legs or not. It is not their bailiwick.

I could argue that chemical reactions are the gateway to consciousness in general. And that a spiritual moment is just a particular set of chemical reactions in the brain. My Chemical Spirituality

OK ... I'll try explaining my point another way. Two axioms or propositions: 1) All dogs have four legs. 2) Freddie is a dog therefore: Freddie has four legs. Is the logic correct?

I was reading an article in the New Scientist last night about using psilocybin (a psychedelic) for treatment of several mental conditions and came across this quote: It wasn't uncommon for them to say: "That is the most meaningful experience of my life, on par with the birth of my firstborn child." Indeed a third of the participants in the study say that it was the most significant spiritual experience of their life. The article mentions secular spirituality does not go into any detail how it might be different to the non-secular version. But it is definitely a state of mind. Behind a pay wall I'm afraid Psychedelic therapy: Can you take out the trip and still treat depression? | New Scientist

Firstly, this is Coyne's point and not Singer's. Not that it matters. Now an elected judge to me seems like an anathema, at least for me. I had occasion to cross into the States recently. There were election signs up, for coroners, assessors and judges. For me this was bizarre. Did not see any for sheriffs. First that they have to be elected and secondly that each of them had a little "R", on their advertising. R being Republican of course. It's very conservative just south of me. So how do we get unpoliticized and elected judges at the same time. So US judges are in a sense elected. The Supremes of course go through a political circus to be elected to office. In Canada (and I suspect UK and Oz) the process is much less political, though likely not without criticism. Singer's point was that the courts don't write the law, they apply it. Sadly it is up to the electorate to install politicians who can govern wisely. Of course the constitution in the States is "unfair" where the representation is far from proportional. Nevertheless, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert (never mind Trump) get elected. And I have come across really nice people vote for Trump (even our very own Joseph), seemingly oblivious to the unsuitability of the candidates for high office. The trick is to unelect the undesirable lawmakers. I agree 100% on your observation of the Bible and the Constitution. But that is for another discussion.

Yes, but no less illusory? One of my favourite quotes from Joseph Campbell is: You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation. That's fine ... call it that helping others, being nice etc. But I can't help thinking spirituality is something different (not more ) It is spoken of as a 'buzz' that we might get being in community or helping others. Our mirror neurons on fire. By all means we can help others in need, ultimately it makes sense in the long run. Why dress it up as spirituality? Incidentally, Jerry Coyne in his WEIT blog rails against a lady for being spiritual, in the piece before the blog about abortion.

Fortuitously a blog I follow Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne the author discusses Peter Singer's take on Wade vs Roe. And basically it sort of points to what I thought happened. Well worth a read I think Peter Singer’s contrarian view on the Dobbs decision – Why Evolution Is True

Love is such a multi-faceted word. It is used to describe our feelings towards food, sexual acts, deep commitment, and so on. All these feelings are mediated by chemistry. While I gather the New Testament has passages extolling the virtues of love, it also has Luke 14:26. I am sure Christian apologists manage to explain away this verse. And progressive Christians concentrate more on the love side of things. Just the general tone of Gulley's posts is more he is railing against fixation of the Church on doctrine rather than people evaluating for themselves what makes sense and being kind in general. Is being kind: spiritual? Is thinking about these things? I don't know what we mean by spirituality. I would guess, some people might feel at one with the universe (I don't) and they might consider themselves spiritual. People take drugs, meditate, drone mantras, even read books to find this so-called spirituality. For me, it is moments of awe if the moments come they come. I think Joseph's acceptance is close. Chasing after spirituality, even acceptance or having them thrust upon us is not going to work. Or so my chemistry tells me.