Tcpc: An Atheist's Perspective

[minsocal]

It is a sentiment I see a lot. Not amongst philosophers of religion. But especially among secularists or rationalists, when commenting on spirituality (or asked if they are at all spiritual or have 'religious feelings'), often equate spirituality with a sense of awe at the universe. This seems to simplify what actual religious/spiritual disciplines and philosophies have tried to accomplish, as well as limit the vocabulary they have developed to accomplish it.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

As a third generation progressive christian, it is a sentiment found in the life and teachings of Jesus. But what do I know?

 

Myron

[Mike]

Myron,

 

I have not tried to say that awe is unimportant or that it is an invalid sentiment, or that it is absent from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Abraham Heschel wrote a couple of books on religious philosophy that hinged on awe as a pivotal existential response ("the awe of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"). It is my opinion, though, that if awe is equated with, or is taken to exhaust, what virtue religious philosophy has, then quite a bit has gone missing. Would you not agree? What then would be the essential difference between Richard Dawkin's worldview and that of a follower of Jesus, since they have both affirmed awe?

 

Peace,

Mike

[Mike]

Perhaps I should add that my sentiments here about awe reflect my personal experience, and I have tried to be careful to qualify it as such. I do not mean to demean anyone else' experience of awe, which may very well be, and probably is, much deeper and more abiding a presence than what accompanies me day to day.

 

All the mystics whose lives were infused with an abiding awe and spontaneity were psychologically a-typical, which makes sense since within spiritual discipline we are trying to overcome the problems that typify our normal, habituated psyche.

 

My objective point was that awe does not exhaust the content of any traditional religious philosophy.

 

 

Peace,

Mike

 

 

edit. I suppose what originally troubled me about awe is that it is generally a response to something that genuinely merits it -- that which is truly awesome. The universe according to scientific materialism does not inspire any such feelings from me personally. So when it is coupled with an appeal to spirituality as understood only as a sense of awe, it feels even more empty as an invocation.

[minsocal]

Myron,

 

I have not tried to say that awe is unimportant or that it is an invalid sentiment, or that it is absent from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Abraham Heschel wrote a couple of books on religious philosophy that hinged on awe as a pivotal existential response ("the awe of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"). It is my opinion, though, that if awe is equated with, or is taken to exhaust, what virtue religious philosophy has, then quite a bit has gone missing. Would you not agree? What then would be the essential difference between Richard Dawkin's worldview and that of a follower of Jesus, since they have both affirmed awe?

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Mike,

 

I've never heard of Abraham Heschel and do not respect Richard Dawkins. Sorry.

 

Myron

[NORM]

I realize that this question is, at once, very interesting and also a pragmatic nightmare, and so rather than ask that everyone post their idealization of God in this thread, I might tenuously create a rudimentary scale. Consider a 1 to 10 scale, in which 1 is a very supernatural conception of God (think of this as the fundamentalist, bearded fire and brimstone God of the old testament; omniscient, omnipotent, very active in the lives of mortals, etc.), and 10 is an entirely naturalized conception of God (where the term "God" therefore applies to the universe, generally, or the state of the natural world, etc.). At 5 you might find deism, or other views in which God mostly manifests himself in nature, but also has some supernatural powers (can listen to prayers, can intervene, etc). Were you to rate both yourself and all PC members on this scale (2 separate ratings), where would you fall? To give you a rough idea, I would place myself at 10 on this scale, finding no need or in fact room for supernatural at all, in any form. My prediction would be that, while the members of this community will hold significantly further naturalized idealisations than typical Christians, few of you will be 10's, but this is not a very educated guess (which is why I ask the question in the first place).

 

 

First, Chris, thank you for a most interesting thread.

 

I've been away from my diversions communing uninterrupted with family, so I've been lax in responding in this fora.

 

I think I am probably the only 10 in this group. Although raised in a Christian family, I've never quite grasped the necessity to articulate our philosophy (what I call faith) in supernatural terms.

 

I find awe in the mundane.

 

I find immense pleasure in searching the piney-woods for choice Sorrel mushrooms in the early morning dew, and discovering a bushel-full underneath a well hidden log.

 

I transcend commonality by feeling a warm breeze on my cheek on a sunny, summer afternoon.

 

As a child, I would climb on top of the roof of our house and stare for hours on end at the night sky, dreaming of one day exploring distant planets and discovering other sentient beings just like us hurtling through space on some distant rock.

 

I have no need for the comfort of a supernatural experience in order to add mystery to my life, or to give me hope for living beyond my mortal years. I seek to make the most of each and every day. Like you, Chris, for me; G-d neither adds to nor detracts from this life. I think that certain religious philosophies can enhance our lives by helping us relate to one another at a deeper level. I really see nothing more to it than that. I certainly don't see how entertaining notions of supernatural entities is helpful in this enterprise. But, in many cases, belief in deities can be used as a reason for embracing these helpful philosophies - particularly within religious communities such as this. I see no harm in this.

 

I awake and decide that it will either be a good day or a great day. The only mystery I experience is what surprises might be waiting for me around the next corner. Life itself is the ground of being for me.

 

I look forward to reading more thoughts on this topic.

 

NORM

[JosephM]

Hi Mike,

 

i think saying 'reality is meaning' is agreeable with me also.

 

Bill,

 

No, i don't think you are understanding what i said correctly. Perhaps you have read in too much or make an assumption that was not meant. What one typically identifies as ones life and Life itself are not the same thing. Ones life has meaning but Life itself is beyond such languaging of meaningful or meaningless. It seems to me, neither 'Truth; nor 'Life' can be objectified in a statement because both speak of something beyond a mere statement considered true or factual or as referenced in 'my life'.

 

 

Joseph

[soma]

Chris thanks for mentioning this thread in your introduction.

 

I have found awe to be a psychological process that matures into a common denominator for love and unity. It shows me unity and love in the midst of diversity. It seems there is no unity in diversity without love.

 

Awe has given me a successful attitude that shelters me from the flood of separate experiences in life that drags one down and drowns me in a tightfisted attitude. Just like Noah followed directions in the midst of his troubles to build the ark, I can build a balanced state of mind. The separation that I encounter on earth is just a time to balance, adjust, heal and redirect the mind to the awe in one pure consciousness. When I meet life’s challenges constructively, it seems I build an ark of spiritual consciousness that is strong and able to resist negativity because it is situated on a balanced state of mind. This ark of consciousness also rests on the highest peak after a flood of negativity because it is consciously aware of the presence of unity. This unity leads me back from the torrent of pessimism that separates and pulls me down to dissolution. It is the belief in the One Almighty Consciousness that gives courage, strength, comfort in the awe that I experience. I feel unity is a remedy for my mind, for mental ills and a solution for my difficulties. Awe seems to make my mind a channel for love, friendship, health, and a way to put fortune back into this world. This successful attitude in the unity of pure consciousness enables me to function at a much higher level eliminating fear from the body and impurities from the mind, which can cause disease and impede spiritual development.

 

The experience and see the awe in simple things the physical, mental and spiritual windows must be cleaned so I can see clearly where to rest my ark of unity. To do this I must slow down the destructive pace of modern life so I can get a solitary glimpse of the inner life of consciousness and the awesome power of clear thought. When I dwell in the consciousness of God as the infinite Power then no human, devil or evil can do me harm. This one Consciousness is the one Power, the All-powerful and the only Power that I acknowledge, nothing less than Omnipresence. When I have come to understand this fact and the interconnectedness of all things I know love; I know myself; and I know peace. The awe of our consciousness (the awe in the collective consciousness is not mine so I can't use my) shelters me from health problems, money worries, guilt and other failures that can cause me to be depressed. The awe of unity shields me from life’s storms and its waves of destruction.

[..ant]

Hi Chris,

 

I'm new to the board, so coming a bit late to this topic. Great topic BTW and I appreciate your questions and approach.

 

Consider a 1 to 10 scale, in which 1 is a very supernatural conception of God (think of this as the fundamentalist, bearded fire and brimstone God of the old testament; omniscient, omnipotent, very active in the lives of mortals, etc.), and 10 is an entirely naturalized conception of God (where the term "God" therefore applies to the universe, generally, or the state of the natural world, etc.).

 

I'm definitely a 10 in that I don't believe in any supernatural forces or causes. For example, per your discussion of consciousness, I believe that mind and consciousness are fully manifested physically in the brain, no need for supernatural explanations or dualism. However, at the same time my conception of God is not tied to the "universe" or "state of the natural world" or anything physical. For me, the search for God is the search or meaning and purpose in one's life.

 

..ant

[Mike]

Hello ant,

 

For example, per your discussion of consciousness, I believe that mind and consciousness are fully manifested physically in the brain, no need for supernatural explanations or dualism.

 

I'm genuinely not sure that either monisms or dualisms are ultimately tenable, but I find your word choice curious. If mind is fully manifested physically in the brain, what is it that's manifested?

 

Peace,

Mike

[..ant]

If mind is fully manifested physically in the brain, what is it that's manifested?

 

Hi Mike,

 

I guess I would say everything associated with thinking and awareness: thought, language, consciousness, sub-conciousness, all mental processes. Another way to say is if you harm or destroy the brain, you harm or destroy mind and consciousness.

 

..ant

[Spiker439]

This may be true, but nothing of consciousness as such is thereby explained. And by asserting that subjectivity is within the realm of scientific objectification, you have admitted an ontology in full accordance with the aims and strictures of metaphysical materialism. I don't accept such an ontology at base; I see no problem with the existence of mind as mind, subjectivity as subjectivity, and have not bought into the modern scientific urge to reduce everything to the metaphysical construct of 'object'. However useful such methods might be in describing and analyzing the functions and processes within the structure of mind, it does not in any way follow that mind is eliminated as an ontologically significant level of description. Explained away for the sake of other metaphysical commitments, but not explained as such.

 

Whether mind is monad or myriad, mind is not gone. Mind as myriad was seen by Dogen Zenji, who certainly was no materialist. He wrote, 'To carry the self forward and illuminate myriad dharmas [actualities, elements of existence] is delusion. That myriad dharmas come forth and illuminate the self is enlightenment.'

 

As I mentioned previously, I am also wary of materialist claims; I think that you misunderstand my position by characterizing me in this way. In a previous post I mentioned that science can explain in many different ways, not all of them reductionist. I don't think that materisliam or reductionism are appropriate with respect to things like minds, so we are in accord on that matter. But you assume that science entails eliminative materialism; that the mind will be "gone" if we try to explain it reductively. I say again that science need not explain in such a way. I prefer a mereological relationship of explanation between mind and brain, such as supervenience, which is not the same as reductionism.

 

More generally, with respect to the "existence implies meaning" talk, I can't say that I agree with the conclusions most of you have made. I think that to draw a strong link between subjectivity and meaning is absolutely correct, but an entailment or implication is too strong a link for me. Does the existence of a bacteria imply meaning? Certainly not. Does our existence imply meaning? Perhaps, but I don't think I mean the same thing by "meaning" here. Take patterns, for instance. Patterns are meaningful in virtue of their being subjectively perceived, and hence our existence is necessary for meaningful patterns but does not imply them because we need not have seen these particular patterns at all. I get the sense that this isn't the kind of meaning everyone is talking about, anyway, but I'm not sure what exactly you all mean by "meaning". I'm not really looking for clarification here (though, if it comes, I'll be both surprised and thankful), rather I'm just pointing out a semantic peculiarity.

 

I think I am probably the only 10 in this group. Although raised in a Christian family, I've never quite grasped the necessity to articulate our philosophy (what I call faith) in supernatural terms.

 

I have no need for the comfort of a supernatural experience in order to add mystery to my life, or to give me hope for living beyond my mortal years. I seek to make the most of each and every day. Like you, Chris, for me; G-d neither adds to nor detracts from this life. I think that certain religious philosophies can enhance our lives by helping us relate to one another at a deeper level. I really see nothing more to it than that. I certainly don't see how entertaining notions of supernatural entities is helpful in this enterprise. But, in many cases, belief in deities can be used as a reason for embracing these helpful philosophies - particularly within religious communities such as this. I see no harm in this.

 

I rather enjoyed your post Norm, thanks for sharing. In addition to enjoying your excellent prose, I also found your ideas very familiar, mirroring mine quite closely on this particular issue. I might only disagree with you on (or further qualify) your final point; in many cases belief in deities has been used as a reason to either embrace a horrible, inhumane philosophy, or to commit atrocious acts. I have seen none of that vein in this community, but I think it is important to also remember the dark side of religion and religious belief. As such, I couldn't agree that I see no harm in the endeavour, to make a general point.

 

Soma: Thanks for joining the discussion. I'm curious about your post; while reading it I wondered how much was metaphor and allegory and how much was factual belief. For instance, when you mention devils and disease, are you referring to any particular instantiated occurrences, or just bad stuff in general? Also I thought I'd mention that, until you used the word "God", you sounded very much like a pantheist or Buddhist. Normally this would surprise me greatly, considering how at odds Buddhist and Christian philosophies typically are, but being a little more familiar with the workings of this community this isn't quite as strange as it normally would be. Do you think you identify more as a Christian, or as a pantheist or Buddhist?

 

Minsocal: Why don't you respect Richard Dawkins? He's a brilliant philosopher and biologist, and I think he's brought a lot to the debate, regardless of which side he's on. Perhaps you disagree with his arguments or even his methods, but I wonder why he's caused you to experience a strong reaction such as disrespect. I think he holds a view which is very similar to a few members on this thread, so I'm curious to know why you find him so unpalatable.

 

Mike: No monism or dualism? But what's left if we preclude both options?

 

Yvonne: I think that, when talking about the gap (or lack thereof) between science and God, and wondering if the two are mutually exclusive or compatible, I think the answer depends on the particular conception of God to which one allies. A fundamentalist old testament God is at contraries with science, because the two often make mutually exclusive predictions or claims about the world. I agree that a different conception of God (for example, pantheism) might be compatible with science, even if the two don't overlap very much, as you say. Of course, the two could overlap greatly (for those who are a "10" on the naturalism scale, for instance), and this need not create mutual exclusivity.

 

Jennell: Process theology is very interesting but, from my own perspective, actually precludes a lot of the christian doctrine. As such, I'm curious as to why you still identify as a Christian, considering that process theology does not leave much room for Jesus, etc.

 

Ant: I'm glad you've also joined the discussion. One of the most interesting parts of this inquiry, for me, has been figuring out just how much (or little) my views differ from those held by the members of this community. For instance, I am fascinated by other "10's" on the naturalism scale who believe in God in some form, since we share much of our worldview yet differ greatly in this one respect. As such I would be interested in knowing why you feel compelled to posit God's existence, and what exactly is the nature of God if there is no supernatural? Perhaps you are simply some form of pantheist?

 

Thanks to all for the back and forth discussion, which I've been reading and enjoying very much. I think I'm getting somewhere with respect to understanding the heartbeat or common thread running through the community. I'm still a ways from understanding the position(s), but the candid nature of this discussion has been very helpful in moving toward this goal. As always I'm looking forward to your future comments.

 

Chris

[Mike]

Hello Chris,

 

As I mentioned previously, I am also wary of materialist claims; I think that you misunderstand my position by characterizing me in this way. In a previous post I mentioned that science can explain in many different ways, not all of them reductionist. I don't think that materisliam or reductionism are appropriate with respect to things like minds, so we are in accord on that matter. But you assume that science entails eliminative materialism; that the mind will be "gone" if we try to explain it reductively. I say again that science need not explain in such a way. I prefer a mereological relationship of explanation between mind and brain, such as supervenience, which is not the same as reductionism.

 

I apologize if I've misrepresented your position at all. In all honesty though, I see no viable route aside from eliminativism, if materialism is what is being argued for. Eliminativism is the final, logical conclusion of a materialistic ontology, where one's picture of reality must fundamentally exclude mental or subjective qualities. Unless subjectivity remains as a real category of being, then mind has been eliminated in any meaningful sense. But if subjectivity be truly affirmed, then one is certainly not arguing for materialism or physicalism in any usual, modern Western sense.

 

I suppose I'm interested in preserving empirical phenomena as real, as having ontological significance; without such a basic affirmation, there is quite literally no point to any further investigation. Even Norm's enjoyment of the afternoon breeze is an illusion based on a category mistake. And unless supervenience places one on a different ontological footing than materialism at base (does it?), then it seems to me that no matter what, mind is effectively gone as a real phenomenon; it isn't clear to me how tweaking one's philosophy of part-whole relations could accomplish otherwise.

 

I have nothing against reductionism (neither for nor against it). I just don't accept materialism as an ontology.

 

More generally, with respect to the "existence implies meaning" talk, I can't say that I agree with the conclusions most of you have made. I think that to draw a strong link between subjectivity and meaning is absolutely correct, but an entailment or implication is too strong a link for me. Does the existence of a bacteria imply meaning? Certainly not. Does our existence imply meaning? Perhaps, but I don't think I mean the same thing by "meaning" here. Take patterns, for instance. Patterns are meaningful in virtue of their being subjectively perceived, and hence our existence is necessary for meaningful patterns but does not imply them because we need not have seen these particular patterns at all. I get the sense that this isn't the kind of meaning everyone is talking about, anyway, but I'm not sure what exactly you all mean by "meaning". I'm not really looking for clarification here (though, if it comes, I'll be both surprised and thankful), rather I'm just pointing out a semantic peculiarity.

 

Though meaning, no doubt, can be defined many ways, I see it as connection and as implication within the domain of subjectivity (or within a broader inter-subjective reality). I don't mean it in a sense of 'patternicity', but something existentially prior which affords the very possibility of meaning, implication at all (I'm supposing that the ability to realize meaningfulness is not something akin to what's happening in a mere description of information processing). I know you may not accept that there can be any such existential dimension to reality, or one that can be re-presented in a type of discourse in its own right, but I see no reason to limit one's metaphysical vocabulary in such a way.

 

Mike: No monism or dualism? But what's left if we preclude both options?

 

I'm convinced that reality itself knows nothing of isms. Dualism in the Cartesian sense arose as a highly specific metaphysical edifice. Res cogitans pitted against res extensa. Monism in this context arises when we try to eliminate one of these from our ontology -- or from without this context, when we try to say everything is one kind of "stuff" regardless of what that posited stuff is. The whole enterprise is heavily laden with all manner of pretense that is difficult to sort out. Both are metaphysical structures and have no direct ties to empirical reality. Nevertheless, I would not want to preclude either, but see them rather as useful, limited categories that are philosophical in character. I'm satisfied simply accepting the empirical immanence of reality, and if there is more to reality (or more reality present) than we can, in principle, methodically objectify, this leads neither to dualism nor to monism in any well developed sense.

 

Why don't you respect Richard Dawkins? He's a brilliant philosopher and biologist, and I think he's brought a lot to the debate, regardless of which side he's on.

 

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I thought I might point out that while Dawkins may be a brilliant biologist, he has no credentials as a philosopher and doesn't claim to be one.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[JenellYB]

Process theology does not exclude Jesus...in the sense we are 'co-creators' with God in manifesting an emerging reality, so would one such as Jesus be one of those co-creators.

Process theology is not excluded or rejected by all Christians, quite a few have incorporated into their concept and view of creation. Though not generally the more tradtional, evangelicals, of course.

 

re buddhism...while I am not a buddhist, or much studied in it, I do know many Christians that have embraced and incorporated many buddhist principles into their faith understandings.

 

Jenell

[NORM]

I might only disagree with you on (or further qualify) your final point; in many cases belief in deities has been used as a reason to either embrace a horrible, inhumane philosophy, or to commit atrocious acts. I have seen none of that vein in this community, but I think it is important to also remember the dark side of religion and religious belief. As such, I couldn't agree that I see no harm in the endeavour, to make a general point.

 

Chris

 

I don't think that we disagree on this point.

 

And I would suggest that most in this forum are well aware of the dark side of Christianity. The reason for a community such as this is - at least in my mind - is as a countervailing force against these negative tendencies within this faith-group. I would hope that, as time goes on, there would be more recruits from other faith-groups such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism - indeed; even Atheism!

 

From my perspective, this community is all about behaving toward one another with love, respect and understanding.

 

However, the fact that I must retreat to an anonymous, on-line community to find like-minded individuals who wont burn me at the metaphorical stake for being non-theist is evidence that you are not entirely off base.

 

NORM

[BillM]

I would hope that, as time goes on, there would be more recruits from other faith-groups such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism - indeed; even Atheism!

 

You'd probably be surprised, NORM, to hear me say that I, too, would like to see this. This is why, a while back, I asked the question of where we, as a community, thought this forum might go in 5 or 10 years. The response to my question was, in brief, there were no plans. Someone once said that if we aim at nothing, we are sure to hit it!

 

If it was my forum (and it surely isn't), I would work on transitioning it to something where "progressive" people from all the faiths could interact here. I might call it "The Forum for Progressive Spirituality" or "The Forum for Progressive Faith" or something else rather inclusive but unexciting. Granted, any title is going to seem exclusionary to some.

 

But, as it currently stands, there is no way to get around the fact that this website and forum is titled "Christianity" and that 7 out of the 8 Points say, "We are Christians..." It has been pointed out, quite correctly, that this doesn't mean that non-Christians of all flavors are not welcome here. Indeed they are, as our dialogue demonstrates. But the fact is that we currently have a label that screams "Christians" and "Christianity" and that is going to inherently be a turnoff, not to just people of other faiths and of none, but even to those of other faiths who are more progressive (progressive Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists) but who, for various reasons, don't want to be too closely associated with the label "Christian" or "Christianity."

 

Me, I'm an amorphous blend of theist, deist, non-theist, agnostic, and atheist depending on which question or conversation I'm in. But I, for one, ALWAYS enjoy your posts, NORM, and find your signature to be a good reminder of what Christianity can do and become when we forget the Golden Rule and ignore Jesus' commands about love.

[..ant]

Ant: I'm glad you've also joined the discussion. One of the most interesting parts of this inquiry, for me, has been figuring out just how much (or little) my views differ from those held by the members of this community. For instance, I am fascinated by other "10's" on the naturalism scale who believe in God in some form, since we share much of our worldview yet differ greatly in this one respect. As such I would be interested in knowing why you feel compelled to posit God's existence, and what exactly is the nature of God if there is no supernatural? Perhaps you are simply some form of pantheist?

 

 

Hi Chris,

 

No, not a pantheist. I don't equate God with the universe, or anything physical. For me, the search for God is the search for meaning and purpose in one's life. I don't, in fact, posit (or believe in) the existence of God, but I would say that I acknowledge the reality of God. That may sound odd, but in my view, nothing that exists (nothing that is scientifically measurable or observable) can be God, therefore God does not exist. But I acknowledge that my life is meaningful, I acknowledge the reality of the meaningfulness of my existence. And that is how I define God. To acknowledge God in my life is to acknowledge the reality of the meaningfulness of my existence. That reality (my meaningfulness) is also not something scientifically measurable and observable. Neither are the realities of love, empathy, compassion and forgiveness (although if you disagree and would like to propose a scientific test, I'm open).

 

I find my meaningfulness through love, empathy, compassion and forgiveness, which to me is the way of Christ and why I call myself a Christian. But for me, I don't really see things in terms of secular vs. sacred, Christian vs. non-Christian, faith vs. science, or even atheists vs spiritual. If anything, I'd say it's all about nihilism vs. finding meaning and purpose on one's life.

 

..ant

[soma]

I'm curious about your post; while reading it I wondered how much was metaphor and allegory and how much was factual belief. For instance, when you mention devils and disease, are you referring to any particular instantiated occurrences, or just bad stuff in general? Also I thought I'd mention that, until you used the word "God", you sounded very much like a pantheist or Buddhist. Normally this would surprise me greatly, considering how at odds Buddhist and Christian philosophies typically are, but being a little more familiar with the workings of this community this isn't quite as strange as it normally would be. Do you think you identify more as a Christian, or as a pantheist or Buddhist?

 

 

I am thinking now that I am a collection of thoughts. Those thoughts are from the past, but the only thing I can do from the past is to learn from it. It seems the past and future only use up my time in the present. The Buddhist concept of mindlessness helps me to let go of those thoughts and experience solitude in infinity. Silent Night, Holy Night, is the departure point of my arriving at the Truth. I feel the sacred scriptures of all religions are no longer facts, but meanings of awareness mostly written in metaphor or allegory to give another dimension and a panoramic view of what is real. God seems to speak in silence.

 

Thinking as a scientist I feel results can be duplicated then it becomes a theory. In my mental experiment I want the results to bring joy, depth, insight or make me a better person. If I find these results I continue the practice of that spirituality. The proof is in the normal experience and the sense of a deep reality beyond what appears in the world. It seems this is where the spiritual experience gives clues of unity by parting the veil of the physical reality. The problem is every time I perform the experiment I have new eyes that seem to see love, beauty and wisdom everywhere. Yes, some end with tired eyes, but the successful ones seem to outnumber the ordinary in my old age. When I was younger the forefront of my consciousness was dominated by form and the spiritual was in the background so the failures were more common. Now, the background has become the foreground.

 

In Christianity I feel we see many Christians running rampant in the world with no attachment to the energy of the soul so ideological and religious conflicts prevail. Unity touches the base of all faiths and ways of life. It is inconsistent with none. As a Christian I find it is the knowledge of the finer strata of existence or energy that helps me understand my life so as a Christian I try to love and include the unloved in my actions. I feel I need to love those caught in the fundamentalist web of many religions because they feel unloved so project that on others.

[Mike]

Hello ant,

 

If anything, I'd say it's all about nihilism vs. finding meaning and purpose on one's life.

 

I couldn't more agree with your intuitions here.

 

Peace,

Mike

[JenellYB]

I think are all engaged in a perpetual struggle against nihilism, the search, sometimes desperate search, for meaning and purpose in/of life, whether as something existant that we must 'find' or something non-existant that we much create for ourselves. any one may accept or deny that struggle, that search, within themselves, but I think it is always there, none the less.

 

Certainly circumstances and events in life can drive us one way or the other in that struggle, to the extreme of one side of being so filled with sense of meaning and purpose that it seems we could throw all else away, or to the other, a depth of such sense of loss that desperation has given way to despair. Perhaps not every one of us has or will experienced such extremes, recognizing that potential state, observing, empathizing/sympathizing with it as occurs in others' experiences, trying to understand it, from both ends of the extremes, contributes to our own seeking balance in that struggle. I think it is relevant to trying to understand, comprehend, the nuances of difference between such states as acceptance/giving up, depression/despair, repose/apathy, pathological anxiety/fear based in reality of danger, even between desire for companionship and community/insecure fear of being alone.

 

Jenell

[JosephM]

As a different perspective......

i personally am not aware of a search for meaning in my life nor purpose. It seems to me that seeking meaning assumes that there is something missing in my life as it is, or that i need to do to something to find meaning. Perhaps something i am not doing that i believe i should be doing or whatever. It seems to me that beneath the surface of any story i might attach myself to, i find a knowing that all is working according to that which sustains me and brings forth that which is beyond any self concept of meaning or purpose. In this i find little anxiety and much peace. This, contrary to some assumptions i have heard, does not lead me to separate myself from that going on in a seemingly troubled world around me but rather to be an active participant in life doing that which is placed before me by following a silent unction.

 

Joseph

[minsocal]

As a different perspective......

i personally am not aware of a search for meaning in my life nor purpose. It seems to me that seeking meaning assumes that there is something missing in my life as it is, or that i need to do to something to find meaning. Perhaps something i am not doing that i believe i should be doing or whatever. It seems to me that beneath the surface of any story i might attach myself to, i find a knowing that all is working according to that which sustains me and brings forth that which is beyond any self concept of meaning or purpose. In this i find little anxiety and much peace. This, contrary to some assumptions i have heard, does not lead me to separate myself from that going on in a seemingly troubled world around me but rather to be an active participant in life doing that which is placed before me by following a silent unction.

 

Joseph

 

So what are you saying Joseph? You have surpassed the Dalai Lama? You have found perfection?

[JosephM]

So what are you saying Joseph? You have surpassed the Dalai Lama? You have found perfection?

 

Myron,

 

Just as was said, sharing a different perspective. You can contemplate it, ask respectful questions of it, disagree with it and state your reasons or if it speaks to you or offers anything to you that is fine or you can leave it alone. I see you have chosen another option which is, as you might be aware, best left alone and not tolerated on this site. This is meant to be a public warning.

 

JosephM (as Moderator)

[GeorgeW]

But I think there's a tendency nowadays to equate religious intuition and epistemology with 'awe'. Awe is certainly a powerful emotion that can be constructive, but to my knowledge it is not the aim or content of any religious philosophy (though Heschel would be a candidate if any). Unless something psychologically abnormal is going on (not necessarily bad), awe is a fleeting feeling. By itself it affords no substantive worldview. If I had to rely on a vague feeling of awe to get me through life, I don't think I'd last a day. Though awe, I think, does play a role in my life -- for I truly do get excited and wonder about such matters as we discuss here -- it seems to not be divorced from a substantive vision of reality. In other words, 'awe' for me does not simply hang there with nothing to prop it up, and in itself it is not efficacious.

 

Mike,

 

While trying to catch up here after three weeks of planes, trains and automobiles, your comments about 'awe' caught my eye.

 

According to Haidt ("The Happiness Hypothesis") , 'awe' is a universal human emotion experienced under two conditions: a person encounters something that is vast and the vast thing cannot be accommodated by the person's existing mental structures.

 

Although 'awe' is independent of religion, according to Haidt, awe "creates an opening for change and this is why awe plays a role in most stories of religious conversion." The preconditions of vastness and inability to accommodate with existing mental structures seems to make it a great candidate for religious experiences.

 

I hope everyone had nice Christmas and New Year holidays.

 

George

[JenellYB]

Chris, here's a link that provides an example of process theology integrated with Christian thought.

 

http://processandfaith.org/writings/creative-transformation

[Mike]

Hi George,

 

Thanks for the thoughts. I think awe is a healthy and constructive sense. Like most emotions, at least for most of us, it is not something we encounter all the time or at our will. In this way it is important to allow ourselves to be open to such experiences for the truths they can convey to the mind. It helps to bottom-out preexisting assumptions about the nature of life and the self. Still, I feel that more is needed, at least for me, than awe alone. More than awe, there is also wisdom, insight, practice, knowledge, and salvation (however so conceived).

 

Peace,

Mike