romansh

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and how it ticks and basing our principles (humanistic or otherwise) on our understanding and not some potentially outdated tradition that is not subject to revision.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.

For that to be 'true', the axioms must have shifted. Having said that the supreme court worked overtime in starting to roll the States back to the dark ages.

This is the closest Gulley as come to defining spirituality. At least for me. Well, to where does he expand it; does he love 'it' when some pharisee tells his grand daughter is full of sin?

Naylor's quote ... This brought me to wondering did Naylor think there is a spirit that delight to do 'evil'? Is this spirit of the same essence in the what we are discussing as spiritual? Do we need to be spiritual to be at one with this world? Or is that what Gulley means by spiritual? I would argue that we are "at one" with this universe whether we recognize it or not. I could go on.

Agree, so based on the laws of the land which is the correct decision? We both share which we would prefer. But for me going through the small print of the US constitution, precedent, statutes etc is too much like hard work for me. I find the whole thing stinks. If such a large portion of the US people were not indoctrinated into their archaic Christian principles then abortion would not be an issue either at a State level or a Federal level.

The US legal and political systems are fully entwined. Here in Canada and I suppose in Oz if it is based on the British system, the judiciary and politicians are at arms length, with minimal influence by those in power; not none but minimal. The US has got it completely wrong here. Having said that, the US judiciary, here I mean those that get elected to senior positions and not the local hacks who get elected based on their politics (I kid you not), I think make an honest attempt to be impartial, but their biases show through, as would mine if I were judicially inclined. So punting the issue back to the State level may well be the logically correct decision based on the laws of the land. I gather the US Constitution is silent on the abortion issue so it may well not be a Federal issue. Regarding freedom of religion, the Constitution is not silent on this issue so it falls under Federal legislation.

Not surprisingly, I broadly agree with you Paul. Bringing kids into poverty or where they are not wanted is not a great option. My understanding (and I may be wrong here) is that SCOTUS pushed the legal decision back down to the State level. Whereas, they should have pushed the decision/choice all the way down to the individual concerned.

Hi Skyler. For me there is something disconcerting about faith. For me: faith << belief < understanding Again for me faith is like a belief in something despite the evidence to the contrary. Belief is observing the world and constructing a worldview from from the observations and there is an implied assumption that the world view may be modified as more observations come in. Whereas understanding has an educational component. It is more of a journey. A questioning. It is agnostic in very essence. Welcome.

But perhaps the existence of poets and writers, even composers and artists are simply "inspired" by existence. Seeing the world in terms of chemistry or perhaps physics or biology is no less creative than than the arts so to speak. I am still no closer to understanding what Gulley means by spirituality. For me it has to be some kind of feeling. Gulley's juxtaposition of religion with spirituality tells me what it is not. Is simply living a "good" life spirituality? Or is it me, trying to live life whilst not thinking in terms of good and evil spirituality? I can't help but read Gulley's writing as trying to hold on to Christian souls in an unyielding ebbing tide.

Hmmnn? I think all this spirituality thing can be summed up in a Campbell quote: Religion turns poetry into prose. And for context ... Joseph Campbell: "Mythology is poetry..." | JCF: Works

I don't know Paul, I can't help thinking, By Krishna need to get some of this spirituality ... should be read with a subcontinental accent. We don't really know what it is, it might be different things to different people, but so long as some lay claim to this spirituality all is good. I am not sure I am buying it. Helping people can make us feel good. That's OK. I wonder about it though.

People living like that [living well in community] may well be a reality. Whether this is spirituality is more of a thesaural debate.

This diagram I hope helps with with the agnostic atheist dichotomy that I think Ehrman is trying to describe. There is an informal fallacy along the lines, I can't see how something could have happened therefore God did it. Ehrman has changed it to, I can't see how something could have happened therefore God might have done it. Personally, I would leave it at I can't see how something could have happened.

Why are you assuming an Abrahamic frame of reference? If I asked do you believe in Odin? what would be stopping you from answering? Or do you believe in pantheism? As a non believer I can say lots about God, I can wax lyrical about all/some of the different concepts. In fact I could argue that this is the "true" non Idolatrous version. As an agnostic I get where you are coming from. But if we look at the advances, understanding over the last six centuries is amazing. Of course as we understand more the more we can point to what we don't understand. If you want a label for what we don't understand we can call it God by all means. But when your answer is silence then you have something in mind. My personal answer would be No. Perhaps I just don't believe in Idols.

I say stuff spirituality! Take a good hard look at reality and the evidence associated with it and work out best we can where to move on from there. Having said that Gulley could be saying the very same thing and calling it spirituality.

To do it perfectly, I agree. But who says it has to be perfect? Just because it is difficult does it mean we abandon the concept of not parsing the world into "good and bad"? Just catching ourselves doing it is a start. I don't think it is a shade of grey. More of a literal illusion, a very powerful illusion. Again, I think you are pointing to the concept of morality rather than morality itself. The concept certainly exists, making it subjective concept (even in a collective subjective) does not reify it. For me, it is like our sense of colour. The large majority of us have it, but that does not make my kitchen chair red.