Consciousness, Spirituality, and The Need For Religion [Archive]

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 14:09

In response to Silliopolous saying I don't post anything serious and original, I submit the following for SERIOUS discussion.

Questions about Consciousness, Spirituality, and the Need for Religion

This is not a thread about whether or not God exists.

This is a discussion about consciousness, its relation to spirituality, and the human need for religion. This is not to say that all people “need” religion – but it is a common social construct across cultures, even those that have had little or no prior contact with each other.

Consciousness
We first consider consciousness – and the problems inherent in defining it, or even observing it by scientific means – and its existence as a self-referential “bootstrapping” event.

Ronald Laing, a Scottish psychiatrist, defines a "person" (as opposed to a physical being), "in a twofold way; in terms of experience, as a center of orientation of the objective universe; and in terms of behavior, as the origin of actions." ... "My experience and my action occur in a social field of reciprocal influence and interaction."

This is a self-referential or "bootstrapped" approach in which a "person" is defined only through his/her relationships with others. The process for this definition is the recursive interaction between "experience" and behavioral response. Laing makes the point that we can never understand "people" using the mechanical causal logic of "things". We will only understand them by trying to see into their experiences. However, our modern western culture thinks almost exclusively in material-causal terms, hence the large red warning flag raised by Laing with respect to what we call "normality".

Goedel's theorem is a theorem which says that there is a limit to logical constructs, theorems etc. which can be built from material-causal (Aristotelian) logic, beyond which such linear tools cannot hope to securely expose self-consistent truths and where the tools can lead us deeply into false inference. The limit is inherent in the proposition that "all Cretans are liars". This proposition, the liars paradox of the Greeks, was the avenue of attack used by Goedel in formulating his proof.

The difference in the "all Cretans are liars" proposition from countless other material-causal propositions that we could make, such as "all Cretans have two legs", is that we have given the Cretans "consciousness" in this liars paradox. That is, they must be "conscious" of truth before they can lie. Thus in the attempt to prove that the liars paradox is provable or disprovable using material-causal logic, mechanical thinking comes into a direct confrontation with "consciousness", and can't deal with it.

Consciousness is thus beyond linear logic, but that does not say that it is beyond reasoning, As David Bohm says; "Rational law is not restricted to an expression of CAUSALITY." ... "... a rational explanation takes the form; 'As things are related in a certain idea or concept, so they are related in fact.'" This opens the door to an acceptance of a natural order between things which is essentially a "massless" phenomena. As Bohm argues, the full perception of gravity experienced by Newton, based on Newton's notes, could be expressed; "as with the order of movement of an apple in fall, so with that of the moon and so with all." The natural order characterizing the dynamic interrelationships between things was dropped out of this experience by Newton in framing gravity in terms of material-causal logic; i.e. F = g*m1*m2/d**2.

The inclusion of natural order in rational thought opens the door to concepts such as bootstrapping where a web of interrelationships can be used in a self-defining context. The bootstrapping concept makes use of this view of nature in which there is a natural "order" through which every subsystem consists of all other subsystems. This is consistent with Heraclitus' view of nature as being an unfolding dynamic "ordered" by the "logos", the inherent coherency underlying everything.

The bootstrapping principle implies a natural reality in which everything references everything else, a "holographic" situation. Bootstrapping, seen in this way, is about building a holographic (conscious) view of things.

As Ronald Laing pointed out, people ARE IN THEMSELVES holographic or "bootstrapped" constructs in that their "person" is defined by a self-referential recursion between the experience and behavior of themself and those with whom they interact. And Laing's lament is that people do not accept the role of complex experience (including fantasy and negation) as their self-engendering agent and are thus alienating themselves from nature; "What we call 'normal' is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience."

It seems clear from the evolving history of scientific thought, which is just now opening its doors to nonlinear concepts such as bootstrapping; and, indeed, proclaiming that this technique is capable of unifying our view of the whole of nature, that we have heretofore tried to force-fit linear, material-causal explanations on all of our existence and experience. What has this meant? For one thing, it has meant all those things that Laing iterates above which are involved in the alienation of our own complex experience. It has meant the denial of our own consciousness.

Consciousness IS bootstrapping. So when science says that bootstrapping shall provide the ultimate understanding of nature, it is something of a tautology. It is like saying; Let's begin to accept and embrace our consciousness so that we, as an enfolded part of nature, can understand ourselves.

In mathematical terms, our mind has the ability to handle the imagery of extended self-referential relationships which mathematically, are expressible only in higher dimensional space. Linear, material-causal logic, which we insist on using to explain all experience, is UNCONSCIOUS AND LOW DIMENSIONAL. This is why the Artificial Intelligence people have been so confident that AI will be able to reproduce human consciousness. It is because the target we are setting for ourselves is not true consciousness at all but a bastardized mechanical surrogate which we have erroneously labelled consciousness.
So, the AI folks are right, it is very likely that machines will be able to reproduce the kind of "consciousness" which will be able to leverage the self-alienation which plagues us today.

As Laing says, "the life I am trying to grasp is the me that is trying to grasp it." It seems time to accept and embrace this self-referentiality, frightening as it is in its limitlessness, going on forever like the endless Celtic knot; a fractal trajectory in eternal inconsumate courtship with strange attractors defined by its own ex nihilo "being".

Spirituality – a level higher than self-alienated individual consciousness?

When we look at individual religions, we notice a common thread – not necessarily one of God (since some religions have no God, as in Buddhism), but one of a deeper need for interconnectedness – not just with other people, but with the universe itself. Whether through prayer or meditation, or through the use of drugs such as mushrooms, or through ascetic practices such as fasting and flagellation, there seems to be a common attempt to reach a higher level of consciousness. Even people who are not religious, such as Timothy Leary, attempted to reach a higher level of consciousness by using LSD. Why is it that people find communal use of certain drugs such as ecstasy and even simple marihuana to be a better experience than use alone? Why is orgasm better with another person as opposed to solitary masturbation?

Why do people in various religions gather together for worship, prayer, and mutual experience? If consciousness is “all in our heads” and simultaneously more than “in our heads” due to the bootstrapping feedback cycle between our minds and our world, is spirituality an attempt to bootstrap to a higher contact between ourselves and the universe? When people gather together, whether for godless meditation, or for worshipping a God or Gods, what or who are we trying to contact?

The Human Need for Religion

Humans, like any other biological creature, reproduce. However, we note that any organism does not have the “right” to reproduce – it can certainly overextend its own environment. Given a certain birth rate, it is only a matter of time before resources are exhausted – even given the capability to move to a large number of inhabitable worlds. What limits our capability in this area is consciousness – it is a fundamental survival attribute of humans (as opposed to most other creatures on this planet). Consciousness is the means by which instincts and drives can be controlled. Human birth is not a “miracle,” nor is life itself; these are mindless, spiritless biological processes. What is a miracle is consciousness. It is the direct intervention of spirit in the world. Ever-increasing quantity of human life threatens the existence of consciousness. The miracle lies in choosing alternatives to this biological progression… Sex does not have to mean reproduction, nor does anger have to mean physical violence. Our manifestations of the variations of religion and spirituality are the mechanism we have grown for ourselves to help bootstrap ourselves to this higher level of consciouness – our need for such a mechanism is self-referential and self-reinforcing – and is held at a deeper level than simple logic would dictate.

The Role of Faith

Here I apply the concepts just discussed, but in the light of my own experience with Christianity. I welcome other interpretations and other religions in your own experience – even those that have been experienced by atheists who may have had what amounts to a spiritual experience.

What is important in any religion is the personal connection it makes with the spiritual, and the transformative power that connection holds for that individual. What is unimportant in religion is the social doctrine that grows up around it, for doctrine and dogma too often interfere with the spiritual connection… The essential truth of Christianity, or of any religion, for that matter, is not found in its history, nor in its theology, nor in its “morality”; the essential truth lies in the nature of what must be believed. For Christianity, what must be believed is the Absolute Paradox, the thing which is impossible for reason, even conscious reason, to understand and comprehend: that God and Man became one and the same, that the eternal and infinite became temporal and finite, that a logical and empirical paradox came into existence. The capacity for faith – a belief in that which neither reason nor custom nor history can explain – is unique to consciousness. Faith is a reaching of consciousness towards an archetype, a leap beyond the mental faculties, a bootstrapping event, a connection of spirit and mind through an archetypal image. The leap of faith does for Christianity what participation mystique does for the old religions – it reconnects the conscious mind with the spirit, in Christianity’s case bootstrapping consciousness by the archetype of the Absolute Paradox.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 14:17

bump

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 14:34

Willamena

13-10-2005, 14:42

I'm only half-way through, but I have this comment: I love you!

Thank you for posting this. Will finish it later in the day.

Tekania

13-10-2005, 14:48

I know some of you find this post boring, but Silliopolous was adamant that the majority of you are people in search of intellectual stimulation, and want a serious thread. At this rate, you are proving him wrong.

I tend to agree, most people do not want interlectual stimulation.

And there is an overt reliance on the "empirical"... And really, a base ignorance of the non-empirical... Concepts such as "life", "consciousness", "intelligence", "emotion", and such seem to defy the empirical... Always getting "redefined" because no empirical analysis ever seems to be able to cope with it.

All modern "empiricism" is defined around a philosophical view whereby it is thought that the entirety can be defined only by the "natural" world, and what comes down to "physical" evidence.... It, itself, is a ideological viewpoint, not grounded on anything but the perception of the one supposing it.

You're not going to get much of a answer, because you're asking them to "step outside of the box"... And many of them cannot conceptualize anything outside of their empirical "box".

They effectively ignore the non-empirical world, because they are not capable, within the framework of their limited ideology, of grasping it. When they ask empirical science "What is consciousness?"... It stares back at them dumbfounded... And since it cannot answer them, they are left in silence.

Nuit-

13-10-2005, 15:08

You're not going to get much of a answer, because you're asking them to "step outside of the box"... And many of them cannot conceptualize anything outside of their empirical "box".
But that's what life is about, no?
Reaching new levels, because if you don't 'step outside' and evolve fast enough nature removes you through evolution.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 15:11

There is no need for religion, no matter how some one wants to spin it.

Zero Six Three

13-10-2005, 15:15

sorry, what was the question?

Nuit-

13-10-2005, 15:19

There is no need for religion, no matter how some one wants to spin it.
No one ever mentioned that religion is necessary.

Balipo

13-10-2005, 15:19

I'm going to do my best to comment, but at the same time, that was a lot to take in so if I seem all over the place forgive me.

The initial ideals of conciousness are brilliant, however, it is later stated (under Human Need for Religion) that we are the only concious animal. This is untrue.

While I know what people will say when I say this, it will be said anyway. All of the primates in category of Great Apes are concious. They mourn loss, celebrate new births, and live as a community, with a knowledge, perhaps not of particular self, but self in relation to the group. In various troupes of gorilla, you can see burgeoning personality in babies equivalent to a 2 year old human (where most children begin to understand that they are an individual person and therefore decide what kind of person they are).

Furthermore, animals such as elephants are known to have conciousness as well. They are aware of their own mortality and the life that they lead. Again, this may be less of an individual conciousness than an "I'm a puzzle piece and know where I fit" sort of situation. But it is still conciousness.

Now, in relation to religion. I, as a staunch disbeliever, have always found that the communal aspect of religion is nice. You have a group of people that share beliefs and wish to discuss them, or perform them together. It's what they do with these beliefs that I've always had a problem with.

I feel that, as part of our ever growing understanding of conciousness, it becomes less the miracle and more the understanding. Gods were created in order to explain that which could not be explained, or that which was not wanted to be explained. As we come to a better understanding of things, I see no need for religion.

That's just what I think. Great thread Sierra. I wish there were more like it anywhere, not just here.

Balipo

13-10-2005, 15:23

I tend to agree, most people do not want interlectual stimulation.

I think that people like to give lip service and say they want intellectual stimulation. Then they get it...and they feel stupid because they didn't know what they were asking for. Then they pretend not to notice.

Then a month later...they'll say "This forum lacks intellectual stimulation"

I still say kudos to Sierra for working hard on this, even though I don't agree with everything you are positing.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 15:25

No one ever mentioned that religion is necessary.

Well, while I agree he does state "This is not to say that all people “need” religion " he then follows up with, "but it is a common social construct across cultures, even those that have had little or no prior contact with each other." Thus suggesting that there is a need. It is some what of a contradiction if you ask me.

This is a discussion about consciousness, its relation to spirituality, and the human need for religion. This is not to say that all people “need” religion – but it is a common social construct across cultures, even those that have had little or no prior contact with each other.

Foecker

13-10-2005, 15:25

I tend to agree, most people do not want interlectual stimulation.

And there is an overt reliance on the "empirical"... And really, a base ignorance of the non-empirical... Concepts such as "life", "consciousness", "intelligence", "emotion", and such seem to defy the empirical... Always getting "redefined" because no empirical analysis ever seems to be able to cope with it.

All modern "empiricism" is defined around a philosophical view whereby it is thought that the entirety can be defined only by the "natural" world, and what comes down to "physical" evidence.... It, itself, is a ideological viewpoint, not grounded on anything but the perception of the one supposing it.

You're not going to get much of a answer, because you're asking them to "step outside of the box"... And many of them cannot conceptualize anything outside of their empirical "box".

They effectively ignore the non-empirical world, because they are not capable, within the framework of their limited ideology, of grasping it. When they ask empirical science "What is consciousness?"... It stares back at them dumbfounded... And since it cannot answer them, they are left in silence.

Thank God there's you to provide some answers regarding the non-empirical, huh? I mean, after this rather judgmental post of yours, you decided to instantly start a new post to present your personal, as opposed to 'adopted from third parties,' view on 'matters of a non-empirical nature,' all, how could it be any different, based on your personal experience, right? Here’s looking forward to it! :)

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 15:31

There is no need for religion, no matter how some one wants to spin it.

Then why do so many cultures do it? With so many common elements? With so many attempts to bootstrap beyond mere consciousness?

Nuit-

13-10-2005, 15:33

Well, while I agree he does state "This is not to say that all people “need” religion " he then follows up with, "but it is a common social construct across cultures, even those that have had little or no prior contact with each other." Thus suggesting that there is a need. It is some what of a contradiction if you ask me.
I think this is observation, in which he tries to show that religion seems to be a way for people to fill the gap, not that it's the only way to fill it.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 15:36

I think this is observation, in which he tries to show that religion seems to be a way for people to fill the gap, not that it's the only way to fill it.

Timothy Leary wasn't religious - but he was trying to bootstrap beyond ordinary consciousness.

I'm identifying a phenomenon - one that has common elements and roots - not justifying it.

It demands an answer as to why it's so common, and what it's trying to achieve.

I do not believe for a minute that religion is solely about social rules and customs. Better yet, I don't believe that religion is about morality, either.

So Steph, before you get all wound up in a knot, get off your high horse and try to discuss this.

Tekania

13-10-2005, 15:36

Thank God there's you to provide some answers regarding the non-empirical, huh? I mean, after this rather judgmental post of yours, you decided to instantly start a new post to present your personal, as opposed to 'adopted from third parties,' view on 'matters of a non-empirical nature,' all, how could it be any different, based on your personal experience, right? Here’s looking forward to it! :)

I'm not giving answers to the non-empirical... I'm asking you to step outside, and conceptualize it yourself.... Asking yourself these questions, and try to find honest, working answers. As opposed to trying to sit there and give lip-service to things which are not measurable by empirical standards.

Zero Six Three

13-10-2005, 15:39

I know some of you find this post boring, but Silliopolous was adamant that the majority of you are people in search of intellectual stimulation, and want a serious thread. At this rate, you are proving him wrong.
damn straight! we just here to bait the christians..

.. but seriously since your gonna want me to think I'll guess I'll give it a go.. forgive my spelling and grammar.. forgive me in general.. I'm a scientist rather than a philosophizer.. and my english is terrible..
I'm not sure I agree with the last part
[QUOTE]
What is important in any religion is the personal connection it makes with the spiritual, and the transformative power that connection holds for that individual. What is unimportant in religion is the social doctrine that grows up around it, for doctrine and dogma too often interfere with the spiritual connection…
[QUOTE/]
i think that the doctrine is born out the desire for a connection with the spiritual that is more than a one-way thing (I'm not sure if i can convey what i think) and is almost a nessacity (damn my state education!)

Balipo

13-10-2005, 15:42

Then why do so many cultures do it? With so many common elements? With so many attempts to bootstrap beyond mere consciousness?

dogma, tradition, lack of ability to cope with change...

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 15:45

i think that the doctrine is born out the desire for a connection with the spiritual that is more than a one-way thing (I'm not sure if i can convey what i think) and is almost a nessacity (damn my state education!)

Where doctrine is directly related to ritual that leads to a bootstrapping event (mode of prayer, ritual use of drugs, group hysteria, etc.,) you may be correct that at least some of the doctrine is a necessity for a particular religion.

No, I'm not pushing Christianity. Nor am I pushing religion. I just find it interesting that the more "intellectual" someone claims to be, the more likely they are to instantly dismiss any mention of religion and its importance to humans throughout our history - unwilling to discuss its very nature - unwilling to discuss its influence - or, if willing to discuss its influence, only willing to discuss it in a negative light.

There's obviously more to consciousness than what can be measured scientifically. That's my starting point. And I believe that most people understand this concept, if only at a subconscious level - they feel a need to be interconnected - not just physically, but on a conscious level.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 15:48

Then why do so many cultures do it? With so many common elements? With so many attempts to bootstrap beyond mere consciousness?

Well if we go far enough back in history we have learned of the "village mentality". When the world was not so populated there were always village elders.

These were the men that the villagers went to, to seek guidance and obtain wisdom. As populations grew there were simply too many people to all seek council from the village elder, also the element of people branching out across the globe as each "new" world was discovered. Since the elder of a village was really no longer obtainable to these people and as numbers grew, folklore came onto the scene.

Thus stories and certainly something non-tangible had to be created as to serve the ever growing populations. And many gods were born. This way you could seek wisdom without actually having to see the village elder model.

So in very early human history sub-cultures explained things that they could not consult the village elder as in acts of these "gods" they had created to fill the void. Whether it was the sun, moon, or many gods, one for each element that they could not understand.

Through generation after generation as modern humans began to populate the earth these "stories" took on lives of their own, and people started to believe them as "truth" because of fear, lack of understanding and as early law came into the picture it was seen as "ok" to let people believe in such things as fear tended to keep people in line and follow.

Of course I'm giving you a very short summary of the larger picture. What it really boils down to is this, people fear death, people lack understanding of life, therefore the mistake is made of filling their heads with religion and spend a life time working towards a goal of life after death which probably does not exist and waste the valuable time you know you have for sure in the here and now.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 15:48

dogma, tradition, lack of ability to cope with change...

You're not answering why they do it in the first place.

You're not answering why so many people feel the need to feel interconnected at a conscious, spiritual level.

I'm not talking about religion's role as an "explainer" of phenomenon (it's not good at that, and has been replaced by science in most cases).

I'm talking about that deep seated feeling that most people have.

Tekania

13-10-2005, 15:51

dogma, tradition, lack of ability to cope with change...

Doesn't really work, though, does it... If it stemed from that, why then, would the religions themselves "change" and "evolve" over time? Since they evolve, they seem more than capable of coping with changes. Did past religious "icons" like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Menno Simmons, Arminius, Buddha, Mohammed, etc. operate to effect "change" because of some traditionalist dogma? Were they just going along with the tradition of the time?

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 15:51

Well if we go far enough back in history we have learned of the "village mentality". When the world was not so populated there were always village elders.

These were the men that the villagers went to, to seek guidance and obtain wisdom. As populations grew there were simply too many people to all seek council from the village elder, also the element of people branching out across the globe as each "new" world was discovered. Since the elder of a village was really no longer obtainable to these people and as numbers grew, folklore came onto the scene.

Thus stories and certainly something non-tangible had to be created as to serve the ever growing populations. And many gods were born. This way you could seek wisdom without actually having to see the village elder model.

So in very early human history sub-cultures explained things that they could not consult the village elder as in acts of these "gods" they had created to fill the void. Whether it was the sun, moon, or many gods, one for each element that they could not understand.

Through generation after generation as modern humans began to populate the earth these "stories" took on lives of their own, and people started to believe them as "truth" because of fear, lack of understanding and as early law came into the picture it was seen as "ok" to let people believe in such things as fear tended to keep people in line and follow.

Of course I'm giving you a very short summary of the larger picture. What it really boils down to is this, people fear death, people lack understanding of life, therefore the mistake is made of filling their heads with religion and spend a life time working towards a goal of life after death which probably does not exist and waste the valuable time you know you have for sure in the here and now.

You're missing the whole point. I am not talking about religion as an "explainer". Or as a source of knowledge.

I'm talking about communal experience. On a conscious or subconscious level.

Why did Native Americans evolve a ritual that involved eating mind altering mushrooms?

Why do ascetics practice fasting and flagellation?

Why do people experience a better high on ecstasy when they are in groups rather than alone?

What role does consciousness play in this?

Was Timothy Leary doing the same thing - using LSD in an attempt to bootstrap his consciousness to the next level?

Zero Six Three

13-10-2005, 15:51

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 15:55

fear? the fear of nothing? of oblivion? of nothing beyond life?

Nope. Not our of fear.

If consciousness is an unprovable thing outside of our own personal experience (remember Chomsky's old question of "how do I know that the yellow I see is the yellow others see?")

If we need the self-reinforcement with our outside environment to feel ourselves.

If, in total sensory isolation, we fabricate illusions in our own minds (hallucinate in sensory isolation experiments).

Then most of us feel a need to validate our own consciousness by contact with the consciousness of others. This is not satisfied merely by talking to other people, or standing near other people.

We seem to have developed rituals and drugs and other means to arrive at an ability to bootstrap ourselves into a group experience of consciousness.

Balipo

13-10-2005, 15:59

You're not answering why they do it in the first place.

You're not answering why so many people feel the need to feel interconnected at a conscious, spiritual level.

I'm not talking about religion's role as an "explainer" of phenomenon (it's not good at that, and has been replaced by science in most cases).

I'm talking about that deep seated feeling that most people have.

Sorry...I posted the answer to that in a different thread and thought I did it here (GO THURSDAY!!)

So many people have been trained (or taught if you prefer) into these systems of belief since birth. There is your connection, lack of identifying alternate possibilities (or tradition and dogma). Once the ideals are laid, people can convince themselves that they are indoctrinated into something special, and therefore they "feel a connectedness" that is spiritual. Really it's just mental sublimation.

The deep seated feeling you are referring to may be nothing more than something akin to hyperchondria. Convincing that one feels that which is not truly felt.

*snip*
I just find it interesting that the more "intellectual" someone claims to be, the more likely they are to instantly dismiss any mention of religion and its importance to humans throughout our history - unwilling to discuss its very nature - unwilling to discuss its influence - or, if willing to discuss its influence, only willing to discuss it in a negative light.
*snip*

I think that open discussions of religions role in history and its importance to humans is an important intellectual discussion. But at the same time I can argue that stating that a religion ever did anything negative causes the faithful to either go ostrich and stick their head in the sand, or say "That was the past, I don't want to talk about that". It's a 2 way street.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 16:01

So many people have been trained (or taught if you prefer) into these systems of belief since birth. There is your connection, lack of identifying alternate possibilities (or tradition and dogma). Once the ideals are laid, people can convince themselves that they are indoctrinated into something special, and therefore they "feel a connectedness" that is spiritual. Really it's just mental sublimation.

That doesn't explain how it started. Neither does it explain Timothy Leary.

Balipo

13-10-2005, 16:02

Doesn't really work, though, does it... If it stemed from that, why then, would the religions themselves "change" and "evolve" over time? Since they evolve, they seem more than capable of coping with changes. Did past religious "icons" like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Menno Simmons, Arminius, Buddha, Mohammed, etc. operate to effect "change" because of some traditionalist dogma? Were they just going along with the tradition of the time?

Some were. Luther sought to create a new tradition based on his disagreement with the person in charge. Calvin wanted things to simply be more to his liking. Buddha was simply a vessel to convey that which was practiced and believed for years, yet never giving a name.

Religions due change and evolve...ever so slightly. To the point that if religion was an organism, there would be little observable difference in comparing religion of the past and religion of today.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 16:03

You're missing the whole point. I am not talking about religion as an "explainer". Or as a source of knowledge.

I'm talking about communal experience. On a conscious or subconscious level.

Why did Native Americans evolve a ritual that involved eating mind altering mushrooms?

Why do ascetics practice fasting and flagellation?

Why do people experience a better high on ecstasy when they are in groups rather than alone?

What role does consciousness play in this?

Was Timothy Leary doing the same thing - using LSD in an attempt to bootstrap his consciousness to the next level?

Timothy Leary may very well of believed that.

I don't believe I am missing the point. You have basically asked why cultures seem to have certain things in common in belief structure and the way they deal with it, regardless of never meeting.

However what you fail to address is that we know that for example in Africa Christianity was brought there by people trying to "save" or convert what have you. Same is true in all cultures, there is no land in which religion on some level has not been touched, not because it's some common desire on a conscience level, but because people brought their versions of belief and within each culture and or religion they took parts of it and others took part of others and you end up with what we have today. A big mix-matched mush that does and has changed over the centuries.

Take the bible, do you really think or believe that book has not been wrote and re-wrote about a thousand times? Each time changing some thing in it. In fact it's probably been changed so many times that the original text has been lost forever. See, even the bible has been subject to evolution. ;)

Foecker

13-10-2005, 16:04

Falhaar2

13-10-2005, 16:05

I think all conscious beings construct realities based on points of faith in some way or another, it's really just up to somebody's subjective view on how far that faith extends, and what it encompasses.

Here's a cool article on brain activity and it's direct link to spirituality.
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm

Balipo

13-10-2005, 16:05

That doesn't explain how it started. Neither does it explain Timothy Leary.

You said we weren't dicussing religion as a means of explanation...that is how it started. As certain aspects became understandable, some people internalized phenomena, thereby "connecting to the spiritual". Remember religion started as animistic. Only as that view became outmoded by things that were explainable, did the idea of supernatural become anthropomorphised into human (or human like in the case of the Egyptians) gods.

As far as Timothy Leary is concerned...or the Electric Kool-Aid Acid test, or any other use of psychotropic drugs as a divine experience. Drugs create hallucinations. Hallucinations are not real, they are created by the mind. They are temporarily delusional due to chemical intake.

Is it possible that it is really the exact same thing (feeling spiritual because of faith or feeling spiritual because of drugs)?

Sure. I know when I was in college the first time, many girls loved to show up at parties with beer bottles full of water convinced they were drunk (many a guy saved buckage giving a girl Busch NA in a Labatt's bottle) and acting as if they were. Why? They were convinced they were and therefore believed it to be true.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 16:06

Timothy Leary may very well of believed that.

I don't believe I am missing the point. You have basically asked why cultures seem to have certain things in common in belief structure and the way they deal with it, regardless of never meeting.

However what you fail to address is that we know that for example in Africa Christianity was brought there by people trying to "save" or convert what have you. Same is true in all cultures, there is no land in which religion on some level has not been touched, not because it's some common desire on a conscience level, but because people brought their versions of belief and within each culture and or religion they took parts of it and others took part of others and you end up with what we have today. A big mix-matched mush that does and has changed over the centuries.

Take the bible, do you really think or believe that book has not been wrote and re-wrote about a thousand times? Each time changing some thing in it. In fact it's probably been changed so many times that the original text has been lost forever. See, even the bible has been subject to evolution. ;)

I'm not pushing Christianity. And I've deliberately stated that I am not talking about doctrine and dogma, which you seem to be stuck on. You still can't answer any of the questions.

Foecker

13-10-2005, 16:08

I'm not giving answers to the non-empirical... I'm asking you to step outside, and conceptualize it yourself.... Asking yourself these questions, and try to find honest, working answers. As opposed to trying to sit there and give lip-service to things which are not measurable by empirical standards.

Hey, at least I'm providing my personal view, well, part of it, and I don't even have to write a judgemental post in order to do it. :p

As for 'lip-service', yeah, you're quite good at that. hahahaha

Quite good at avoiding setting an example too. :)

I mean, all you've been in this thread so far is all words and no.... yeah.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 16:12

Let's see if this helps:

What I am identifying as "religion" is the search for a communal portal experience.

Consciousness and portal experiences are different aspects of the same thing, related as microcosm is to macrocosm. Consciousness is the intersection of body and spirit in the mind of the individual - while portal experience (religious experience) is a joining of personal and universal intersection.

Since all consciousness is a variety of portal experience, then consciousness is simply where Other meets World, just as event horizons are where singularity meets space-time. Mystical experiences in religious vocabulary, and consciousness in Jungian vocabulary, and event horizons in scientific vocabulary are all the same thing expressed in different languages: points at which "other" or "spirit" meets the spatiotemporal world.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 16:17

I'm not pushing Christianity. And I've deliberately stated that I am not talking about doctrine and dogma, which you seem to be stuck on. You still can't answer any of the questions.

Well I suppose we could play a game of what if instead of what is if you'd like. I prefer reality myself.

I do find it quite interesting though how you keep dismissing everything people are saying as if you hold the right answer and they don't get it... some what arrogant, no?

Oh and I was only using Christianity as an example, you could insert any belief you wish.

If you have a direct question to ask, may I suggest you ask it point blank?

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 16:22

Well I suppose we could play a game of what if instead of what is if you'd like. I prefer reality myself.

I do find it quite interesting though how you keep dismissing everything people are saying as if you hold the right answer and they don't get it... some what arrogant, no?

Oh and I was only using Christianity as an example, you could insert any belief you wish.

If you have a direct question to ask, may I suggest you ask it point blank?

You kept mentioning religion as a belief system for explaining things - which is missing the point.

That was after your one line dismissal of the whole thing.

The direct question was posed in the original post. Actually, there were quite a few, none of which you bothered to answer.

Here, I'll boil it down.

Where does the felt need for a portal experience come from?

Your point earlier that somehow, a person who can't be spiritual alone is somehow less capable is skirting the issue. Why does a person try to be spiritual - to have a portal experience?

And, if consciousness is something that exists as a self-referential bootstrapping event - that is, a boundary condition between self and world, then what, to you, is the portal experience?

Ashmoria

13-10-2005, 16:24

people have a deep seated feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world we live in. as jimmy carter put it "life is unfair".

your dog doesnt. you leave your dog outside all day in a driving rain and he just endures it. you come home and he is happy to be in a warm dry place and never thinks about the rain again. he doesnt whine about it all day to the cat. (like the cat would care.)

if YOU had to spend all day outside in a driving rain because your parents forgot to give you a key, you would STILL be whining about it 10 years later. the sheer WRONGNESS of it would keep it in your mind the rest of your life.

someone in the ancient world was pondering why life sucks so much. he came up with the idea that it started out great but we fucked it up from the get-go and have been suffering for it ever since. the story of the garden of eden is born.

a prince of india steps outside of his house one day to find the horrifying suffering of the masses. his dog wouldnt have even noticed. HE spends the rest of his life in a search for the roots of suffering, how to deal with it, and how to escape it. a great religion is born.

our minds need an explanation of why life sucks and how we can make it better. religion fills this need.

organized religion helps keep this natural need under control. people think up all sorts of wacky explanations for the way life is. (read a shirly mcclaine book sometime).

organized religion keeps it in a nice safe zone. want to leave this crappy life behind and life in a perfect life in heaven? go to church on sunday, confess your sins, etc, and you get in. no problem. DONT DRINK THE KOOLAID. no need to kill yourself so you can catch a ride on the mothership that is hiding in the tail of the comet.

Nuit-

13-10-2005, 16:29

Where does the felt need for a portal experience come from?
Well it could originate from the experience of interconnectedness with our mother before birth.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 16:30

Where does the felt need for a portal experience come from?

See, was that so hard?

It's quite simply social conditioning and no, not every one has it, I don't, my husband doesn't. Many people don't. Not every one has this need.

But the simple answer to your question is social conditioning. Are we all socially conditioned? Yes! But there are those of us who are aware of it and then there are those who are not. While you can't change the social conditioning in any given culture as it's been woven into the fabric of society for so long, you can be aware of it.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 16:31

See, was that so hard?

It's quite simply social conditioning and no, not every one has it, I don't, my husband doesn't. Many people don't. Not every one has this need.

But the simple answer to your question is social conditioning. Are we all socially conditioned? Yes! But there are those of us who are aware of it and then there are those who are not. While you can't change the social conditioning in any given culture as it's been woven into the fabric of society for so long, you can be aware of it.

Saying "social conditioning" doesn't explain how it started.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 16:40

Saying "social conditioning" doesn't explain how it started.

Now you have created a circular argument. No one can really answer that question. Not you, not me, not anyone. Then it does come down to a belief structure. Because no one can answer that question with any solid proof, they can guess, people can have alternative hypothesis, but then you are getting right back into a belief structure which you claimed you didn't want to do. Of course I have opinions on how it started, I believe my second post explained how I believe it started. However you dismissed it as religion. Now I think based on this comment you have made that it is you who does not understand.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 16:50

Now you have created a circular argument. No one can really answer that question. Not you, not me, not anyone. Then it does come down to a belief structure. Because no one can answer that question with any solid proof, they can guess, people can have alternative hypothesis, but then you are getting right back into a belief structure which you claimed you didn't want to do. Of course I have opinions on how it started, I believe my second post explained how I believe it started. However you dismissed it as religion. Now I think based on this comment you have made that it is you who does not understand.

Logically, there either was a point where no one felt this need, and thus someone started it, OR there was a point where everyone felt this need, and someone stepped forward with a solution.

The fact that someone started doing it doesn't answer the question of whether or not there is a deeply felt need by most people for some sort of portal experience.

It appears in cultures that are disconnected to each other, and it takes different forms in different religions.

It even appears in religions where there is no God.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 16:54

Logically, there either was a point where no one felt this need, and thus someone started it, OR there was a point where everyone felt this need, and someone stepped forward with a solution.

The fact that someone started doing it doesn't answer the question of whether or not there is a deeply felt need by most people for some sort of portal experience.

It appears in cultures that are disconnected to each other, and it takes different forms in different religions.

It even appears in religions where there is no God.

Exactly what I said in my second post.

Thank you have a nice day!

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 16:54

I might ask Steph a few other questions along these lines.

1. If a portal experience as described is completely unnecessary, why do people engage in a wide variety of them? Saying "social conditioning" doesn't answer the question there. What benefits do they derive from it? Are there any survival advantages to it?
2. If a portal experience as described is completely unnecessary, is consciousness necessary? I've already posited a role that consciousness plays - in your mind, is it necessary at all? After all, as far as we know, the dinosaurs survived for millions of years with brains the size of a golf ball - what survival role do you believe mere consciousness plays? Or do you agree with my assessment in the first post about consciousness?

Silliopolous

13-10-2005, 17:23

See? Was that so hard?

:D

OK, on point:

Interesting set of people to use as your premise:

Laing, very contraversial and generally deemed outside the mainstream viewpoint of phsychiatric theory, who indeed has been lumped with Cooper and Fouqault as being in the forefront of the anti-psychiatry movement.

And, incidentally, his notion falls short in the case of hermits as they certainly exist outside the bounds of his societal groups.

And Bohm who, although certainly brilliant, was prone to radical ideas and long bouts of depression, and whose work are also certainly still hotly debated items.

So from the get-go you are basing your premise largely on two very contraversial figures and then taking a distillation of some points of commonality between them as some sort of stated fact. This alone is prone to skepticism, although I'm not going to fight you on it as I agree regarding the beneficial nature of better self-awareness, althouhg I wouldn;t say that I believe that this either implies or neccessarily requires such a thing as an "expanded consciousness".

From there your logical argument makes a very disparate second statement before attempting to link the two.

The First, that we must find a means to raise our consciousness in order to fully understand ourselves and our species as a whole is something for one debate.

And the second statement, that all regions have a stated aim of higher consciousness can be a whole other.

But from there, we are led to assume that this implies a direct link that we must need religion in order to acheive a higher consciousness, with leaves us with an unstated implication that higher consciousness can only be achieved through religion.

And here is where your argument breaks completely apart on two fronts.

First, that religion and/or spirituality are the only means to heightened consciousness. (and, incidentally, I would also argue that without a very strict definition of what you mean by spirituality you frankly leave that in namby-pamby land as I have heard many definitions that bear little direct relation towhat I asume you want it to mean to support youtr argument)

And Second, that most religions actually DO heighten consciousness.

Frankly, most of those who state that they consider themselves to be strictly devout seem to be those with the narrowest of minds rather than the most open. And expanding consciousness through strict limitation to a particlar book seems highly oxymorononic.

So, if we first assume Laing and Bohm to have value in this matter, and second we decide that better conscious awareness is an admirable goal (and I'll agree with that one), you still have done nothing to tie this into a human NEED for religion in order to meet that goal. Well, besides reading from the brochure of the church that promises this as a bonus of their congregation.

In other news, the used car dealership promiosed me prompt service on my extended warranty, and that the ewarrantee was needed in order to have a more fulfilling driving experience.

They lied.

Tekania

13-10-2005, 17:26

Some were. Luther sought to create a new tradition based on his disagreement with the person in charge. Calvin wanted things to simply be more to his liking. Buddha was simply a vessel to convey that which was practiced and believed for years, yet never giving a name.

Religions due change and evolve...ever so slightly. To the point that if religion was an organism, there would be little observable difference in comparing religion of the past and religion of today.

So, 10,000 years ago, and now; little change has occured in "religion"? Though you admit a change and evolution?

During the same time frame, humans have changed little (if at all) [cattle have changed more in that time frame, than we]... So, do humans themselves resist change?

Let me say this, "religion" is a social institution, which evolved and changes with humanity (in a general sociological sense)... Religion is an extension of human conciousness... And changes as consciousness changes... You cannot divorce religious development from human society, through its path of evolutionary development... Religion itself is part of that developmental process, which drives human society along its path (as it has throughout history)... Religious views exist as a "community" development (in this sense, Atheism, as much as they will bitch and complain, is equal in form and application as a communal operation of individuals in social groups; and thus, fulfills the same "place" as religion; and will be treated like one...)... "Religion" thus, socially, is intechangeable with "world-view"; a communal (sociological) application by groups towards operating with one-another, and their enviroment [in this sense, any extension of human society can be considered "religious" in nature]... If an operation of this community resists change, it's an operation by the community as a whole (thus, if religion is resisting change, it is because humans themselves do; not the other way around): and indeed, any operation of religion, is an operation of the individuals and/or communities in general.

In the end: if religion was not needed; then why did humans evolve it as an extention of their being? Why did it serve such a use for so long? Why has it operated and evolved with humanity? Why has it facilitated part of humanities advancement for so long? If it's a hinderance, why has it lasted? Are other such extensions being held to the same standards; such as government, warfare, marriage [other social institutions] being held to the same "standards" within your applicable world-view?

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 17:28

Silliopolous

13-10-2005, 17:40

1. In mentioning Timothy Leary, I am leaving open the idea that religion may not be the only way to a "portal experience".

Leaving it open, but certainly not giving it much wieght or any extra exploration.

2. You have to distill each religion down to its essence in order to get at its particular portal experience. If you are drowining in doctrine and dogma, and social effects of religion, you'll never reach the portal experience.

But yet doctrine and dogma are the staples of most churches such tat even it';s followers must fight to get through it. So even if they MAY provide a portal experience to their parishiners, it seems that this is likely to happen almost despite the church rather than because of it.

3. I think what I'm trying to say is that people (most people) feel a need for a portal experience - a higher level of conscious interconnectedness. And religion is or was the primary way to reach it. I believe I also mentioned ecstasy users - in groups - achieving this sort of thing.

Does everyone need a portal experiece? I would like to think so but I have seen far too many that take such obvious delight in their ignorance and who keep such a firm grip on their tightly held beliefs that I tend to think that such an experience would be something that scares the crap out of them rather than something that they would embrace.

And do E-user really have a portal experience? Or do they just think they did? And, existentially speaking - does that matter?

I would argue that the answer would oftentimes be YES if it implies that they take whatever they felt while high to be a true representation of the human psyche as it pertains to mankind as a species.

Stephistan

13-10-2005, 17:45

1. In mentioning Timothy Leary, I am leaving open the idea that religion may not be the only way to a "portal experience".

2. You have to distill each religion down to its essence in order to get at its particular portal experience. If you are drowining in doctrine and dogma, and social effects of religion, you'll never reach the portal experience.

3. I think what I'm trying to say is that people (most people) feel a need for a portal experience - a higher level of conscious interconnectedness. And religion is or was the primary way to reach it. I believe I also mentioned ecstasy users - in groups - achieving this sort of thing.

See, this is nothing but speculation. There are so many ways people believe that they can achieve a higher level of consciousness awareness.

The fact that you lump religion in with a bunch of dopers is an interesting analogy to say the least. Although, in the same breath I for one see it on the same level.

Drugs alter your conscience, does that mean that makes it greater? I personally don't believe so, however some people obviously do believe it does. Where as religion shoves dogma and doctrine down your throat, does this make you more consciously aware? Again, I don't believe so, and again a lot of people would disagree with me.

It's all perspective. I think earlier in your thread some one brought up Chomsky, which was a great example. Do you see yellow the same way I see yellow? Or to even take it one step further, what if we raised our children to believe that a desk was a chair and a chair was a cow, etc, etc.

I don't believe their is any intelligent way to answer all these questions except to give an informed opinion, as there is really no fact in any of it.

To me, I think higher conscience is achieved by using your brain, not unlike your body. If you sit around all day and don't exercise you will be out of shape, the same is true of your brain. I am also a believer of thinking outside the box. I'm actually not big on understanding, in fact I kind of dislike the word. Once you understand something (or believe you do) you close the door on other possibilities.

Where as if you simply remain aware, you never shut the door. You try to be as aware of every thing around you to the best of your ability. Now of course this is what *I* believe. The whole concept itself is very subjective and there is no right or wrong answer here. None that we know of yet anyway.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 17:48

I would argue that the answer would oftentimes be YES if it implies that they take whatever they felt while high to be a true representation of the human psyche as it pertains to mankind as a species.

It may be an attempt to reach another representation of the human psyche.

Go back to the idea of ascetics starving themselves and beating themselves in order to reach a higher level of consciousness. Whether Christians in a desert, or Native Americans doing the Ghost Dance - there seems to be a common thread there.

I am pretty big on the idea that there is something innate about consciousness that isn't sharable through scientific or purely physical means. But to some of the people who do experience portal experiences, they seem real enough.

Does that make them not real?

If we limit our discussions to what can only be measured by a steel ruler, we're eliminating a lot of discussion about human thought.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 17:50

See, this is nothing but speculation. There are so many ways people believe that they can achieve a higher level of consciousness awareness.

The fact that you lump religion in with a bunch of dopers is an interesting analogy to say the least. Although, in the same breath I for one see it on the same level.

Drugs alter your conscience, does that mean that makes it greater? I personally don't believe so, however some people obviously do believe it does. Where as religion shoves dogma and doctrine down your throat, does this make you more consciously aware? Again, I don't believe so, and again a lot of people would disagree with me.

It's all perspective. I think earlier in your thread some one brought up Chomsky, which was a great example. Do you see yellow the same way I see yellow? Or to even take it one step further, what if we raised our children to believe that a desk was a chair and a chair was a cow, etc, etc.

I don't believe their is any intelligent way to answer all these questions except to give an informed opinion, as there is really no fact in any of it.

To me, I think higher conscience is achieved by using your brain, not unlike your body. If you sit around all day and don't exercise you will be out of shape, the same is true of your brain. I am also a believer of thinking outside the box. I'm actually not big on understanding, in fact I kind of dislike the word. Once you understand something (or believe you do) you close the door on other possibilities.

Where as if you simply remain aware, you never shut the door. You try to be as aware of every thing around you to the best of your ability. Now of course this is what *I* believe. The whole concept itself is very subjective and there is no right or wrong answer here. None that we know of yet anyway.

Much better. I wanted your opinions and thoughts.

Silliopolous

13-10-2005, 18:32

It may be an attempt to reach another representation of the human psyche.

Go back to the idea of ascetics starving themselves and beating themselves in order to reach a higher level of consciousness. Whether Christians in a desert, or Native Americans doing the Ghost Dance - there seems to be a common thread there.

I am pretty big on the idea that there is something innate about consciousness that isn't sharable through scientific or purely physical means. But to some of the people who do experience portal experiences, they seem real enough.

Does that make them not real?

If we limit our discussions to what can only be measured by a steel ruler, we're eliminating a lot of discussion about human thought.

Whether something FEELING real IS real is one thing.

However you initially framed this on the merits of discussing this from the perspective of societal neccesity towards human evolution as per Laing which is the context in which I was applying my own feelings.

For his premise is on its value to us a s a species in order to further our society. However, to extend your own argument, putting all of society on regularly-administered high doses of E or LSD might make them all feellike they have expanded cosnsciousnesses and that they have a better understanding of things, however few would argue - I imagine - that having us all permanently stoned would really be an effective way to further the evolution of mankind or of society.

But it does rather dovetail nicely with the old crack about religion being the opiate of the masses.

However it is equally debateable as to it's true merits regarding expanding human consciousness as compared to it's members perceptions about its value.

Balipo

13-10-2005, 19:43

So, 10,000 years ago, and now; little change has occured in "religion"? Though you admit a change and evolution?

I tried to avoid this, but I suppose we have to go into it.

Religion has evolved and changed in that there are more splinters of the same. In 10,000 years, religion has come and gone, as will the religions of today be replaced with something more modern, like (dare I say it) Scientology (which has many converts and doesn't include Christ at all). Basically, religion is a means of control. That control has changed little, as people still flock to it for their fear of change.

During the same time frame, humans have changed little (if at all) [cattle have changed more in that time frame, than we]... So, do humans themselves resist change?

Humans have changed little? So even 200 - 300 years ago when the average man stood about 5'4", weighed about 130, lived to be about 40, and was primarily stout, for the most part, that hasn't changed to the average 5'10", 175 lbs, life span of 80 years, and primarily of a streamlined athletic build, you consider that no change? And in only 200 or 300 years. I'm impressed.

Cattle, however, are bred. There evolve through the mechanical process of putting together desirable conditions. Who does this? FARMERS. It's manufactured evolution, not natural selection.

Let me say this, "religion" is a social institution, which evolved and changes with humanity (in a general sociological sense)... Religion is an extension of human conciousness... And changes as consciousness changes... You cannot divorce religious development from human society, through its path of evolutionary development... Religion itself is part of that developmental process, which drives human society along its path (as it has throughout history)... Religious views exist as a "community" development (in this sense, Atheism, as much as they will bitch and complain, is equal in form and application as a communal operation of individuals in social groups; and thus, fulfills the same "place" as religion; and will be treated like one...)... "Religion" thus, socially, is intechangeable with "world-view"; a communal (sociological) application by groups towards operating with one-another, and their enviroment [in this sense, any extension of human society can be considered "religious" in nature]... If an operation of this community resists change, it's an operation by the community as a whole (thus, if religion is resisting change, it is because humans themselves do; not the other way around): and indeed, any operation of religion, is an operation of the individuals and/or communities in general.

First off...religious is not "a natural extension of human conciousness". I am not concious of any religious power or supernatural overseers. And I have searched. Don't sell mass hysteria as a necessary component to human growth.

If religion is so resilient and doesn't resist change and pretty much just flows with society...why are we still reading 1600 year old books about a 2000 year old man and his 3000 year old god. Sure the book has been translated...but it's still the same old compilation Constatine put together in 400 A.D. Modern christians try to apply the principles to modern issues for which the book doesn't have context or application. This is not evolution, this is holding on to outdated dogma.

In the end: if religion was not needed; then why did humans evolve it as an extention of their being? Why did it serve such a use for so long? Why has it operated and evolved with humanity? Why has it facilitated part of humanities advancement for so long? If it's a hinderance, why has it lasted? Are other such extensions being held to the same standards; such as government, warfare, marriage [other social institutions] being held to the same "standards" within your applicable world-view?

Religion did not "evolve" religion. Religion is a tool to explain phenomena that:

A) Cannot be easily explained
B) The faithful have no wish to understand and can deny via religion.

Tekania

13-10-2005, 22:35

I tried to avoid this, but I suppose we have to go into it.

Religion has evolved and changed in that there are more splinters of the same. In 10,000 years, religion has come and gone, as will the religions of today be replaced with something more modern, like (dare I say it) Scientology (which has many converts and doesn't include Christ at all). Basically, religion is a means of control. That control has changed little, as people still flock to it for their fear of change.

And it leaps forth... Your true intentions...

Humans have changed little? So even 200 - 300 years ago when the average man stood about 5'4", weighed about 130, lived to be about 40, and was primarily stout, for the most part, that hasn't changed to the average 5'10", 175 lbs, life span of 80 years, and primarily of a streamlined athletic build, you consider that no change? And in only 200 or 300 years. I'm impressed.

Cattle, however, are bred. There evolve through the mechanical process of putting together desirable conditions. Who does this? FARMERS. It's manufactured evolution, not natural selection.

LOL... Once again, the horrid concept of people resisting what is effectively an honest truth.

evolution is evolution.... All evolution is "natural". Does not matter what is "effecting" it, because all effects, are in fact, a product of nature, if you drop down to absolute honesty... There is no such thing as "unnatural" evolution, dealing with things empirically [as you would have it]... Does your contrived religion teach you that humanity is not a product of natural evolution; and itself does not act as a natural evolutionary force? Are humans unnatural in this "non-religion" of yours? Do you really have tunnel-vision this severe?

First off...religious is not "a natural extension of human conciousness". I am not concious of any religious power or supernatural overseers. And I have searched. Don't sell mass hysteria as a necessary component to human growth.

Oh, the ignorance... Who said "supernatural"? I said "religious". And you're saying religion isn't a natural extention? If it wasn't, then where did it come from? You're opposition to the "supernatural" elements, and to the term "religion" is itself bordering upon a religious conviction.... Oh, the hypocricy of it all......

If religion were not a natural extension; it would not exist.... If religion is not a natural extention, then what external unnatural force endowed mankind with it?

If religion is so resilient and doesn't resist change and pretty much just flows with society...why are we still reading 1600 year old books about a 2000 year old man and his 3000 year old god. Sure the book has been translated...but it's still the same old compilation Constatine put together in 400 A.D. Modern christians try to apply the principles to modern issues for which the book doesn't have context or application. This is not evolution, this is holding on to outdated dogma.

Funny how so many manage to find context and application.

Religion did not "evolve" religion. Religion is a tool to explain phenomena that:

A) Cannot be easily explained
B) The faithful have no wish to understand and can deny via religion.

Man "evolved" religion.... If he did not, it would not be here. And, no mainstream religion is designed as:
A) A way to explain phenomena.
or B)A way to avoid understanding.

Those are just the constructs of your own determination based upon your own religious ideologies, which themselves, operate in similtude to the others... You're just in denial.

As I said, religion is a human societal function, a product of human nature;an aspect which has evolved into the social human... This cannot be denied from an evolutionary perspective... Comparing it to a "tool" does no service to your Anti-evolutionary dogmatic stance.... tools themselves (honed by man) are a product of "nature"... As man, himself is part of "nature" and that what man does is "natural"... Just as the operations and acts of any other creature... The bow and arrow, or the glock-19 are just as "natural" as the claws of a tiger, or a bear's teeth... Human government, and human religion are just as natural as the wolf-pack or the ant colony... You can't make contrived notions to divorce operations of natural creatures, from the natural creatures themselves; each is the same as the other, intrinsically.... And each operation is a natural course, and an evolutionary aspect of the creature(s), individually, and socially....

Willamena

13-10-2005, 22:58

Cattle, however, are bred. There evolve through the mechanical process of putting together desirable conditions. Who does this? FARMERS. It's manufactured evolution, not natural selection.
LOL... Once again, the horrid concept of people resisting what is effectively an honest truth.

evolution is evolution.... All evolution is "natural". Does not matter what is "effecting" it, because all effects, are in fact, a product of nature, if you drop down to absolute honesty... There is no such thing as "unnatural" evolution, dealing with things empirically [as you would have it]...
Nature occurs without intent. Induced changes are unnatural in that they occur by intelligent design, i.e. designed by the mind of man. Yes, nature is ultimately the cause of the off-spring, but nature is being manipulated --the coming together of non-random entities to mate, the creation of a designed off-spring ...with intent. It is man's intent that makes it "manufactured selection" as opposed to "natural selection".

Does your contrived religion teach you that humanity is not a product of natural evolution; and itself does not act as a natural evolutionary force? Are humans unnatural in this "non-religion" of yours? Do you really have tunnel-vision this severe?
You have put a twist on what he said. If two people with blue eyes were to get together with the deliberate intent of having blue-eyed children, then it would be a manufactured selection as opposed to natural. If they had no such intent, it would be a natural selection.

Tekania

13-10-2005, 23:17

Nature occurs without intent. Induced changes are unnatural in that they occur by intelligent design, i.e. designed by the mind of man. Yes, nature is ultimately the cause of the off-spring, but nature is being manipulated --the coming together of non-random entities to mate, the creation of a designed off-spring ...with intent. It is man's intent that makes it "manufactured selection" as opposed to "natural selection".

You have put a twist on what he said. If two people with blue eyes were to get together with the deliberate intent of having blue-eyed children, then it would be a manufactured selection as opposed to natural. If they had no such intent, it would be a natural selection.

LOL... manipulation of nature, is still natural...

Meaningless distinction, intrinsically. It's merely a philosophical construct, as a form of "moral order" invented into some people's religious world-view.... Empircally, nothing is unnatural.

Equus

13-10-2005, 23:30

There is no need for religion, no matter how some one wants to spin it.

There certainly has been a need for religion - it was man's first reaching for answers. How we explained the world. Science has taken over that job now, and religion no longer has the force in once had, since now it's basically just in the moral/ethical guidance field.

You may question whether faith is necessary today, but it still plays a role. Arguably, it could be replaced with something else now though. After all, TV is the new 'opiate of the masses'. But many people still search for the spiritual or the meaning in their life. Timothy Leary thought you could open the mind through drugs, others do it through religion, both old (such as evangelist Christian) or new-claiming-to-be-old (Wiccan), or truly new (Scientologist). Some people obviously feel there is something missing that can be fulfilled through faith. But do they need the fullfillment that faith offers? Or just want it?

Swimmingpool

13-10-2005, 23:53

There is no need for religion, no matter how some one wants to spin it.
Some people need religion.

Willamena

14-10-2005, 01:26

LOL... manipulation of nature, is still natural...

Meaningless distinction, intrinsically. It's merely a philosophical construct, as a form of "moral order" invented into some people's religious world-view.... Empircally, nothing is unnatural.
Yes, well, materialism does tend to ignore the human side of things.

Syniks

14-10-2005, 02:45

That doesn't explain how it started. Neither does it explain Timothy Leary.
I think Mitchner did a pretty good job of explaining it in "The Source".

As far as Leary goes, I put it into the same category as TM and other Alpha-state inducing practices. All alpha-states provide a perception of connectedness with the "universe" inasmuch as the brain becomes highly receptive to outside stimula at the subconcious level. (real) Hypnosis does this, as do the various types of meditation, programming &/or sixty-cycle AV presentations ("revivals"). (See Dick Stuphen's work... and the workof his detractors).

Zagat

14-10-2005, 03:58

I know some of you find this post boring, but Silliopolous was adamant that the majority of you are people in search of intellectual stimulation, and want a serious thread. At this rate, you are proving him wrong.
I'm sorry but I dont see it as 'intellectual stimulation' but rather as so many non-arguments piled one on top of the other.:confused:

Tekania

14-10-2005, 13:18

Yes, well, materialism does tend to ignore the human side of things.

So, you see my point then.

Intelligence is natural, just as the human is natural.

That which intelligence does (such as the formation of community, society and it's extension) is a natural act for the human.

Tool making is "natural".

The effect of natural "tools" forms natural manufacture of these tools.

Sic. nothing is unnatural, realistically speaking. That which is performed by the natural talents, gifts and capacity of the natural man; is an act, itself, of nature. Nature does not merely include the order constituted in the simple forms; but also includes the more complex aspects of nature (such as species inter-relation); including the inter-relation between mankind (in general) and the world and universe around them.

Sic. "manufactured" evolution, is natural evolution; as it is an operation which occurs, regardless of manipulation, by the natural acts, of the exercize of natural capacity, by the natural person. In this same sense, government, and even religion; are natural operations of people, operating according to the dictates and capacity of their natrually evolved state.

It's not merely materialism; naturalism as a philosophy is guilty of using unfounded assumptions in distinction between mankind and nature as well. And naturalists actually tend to violate such more (materialists tend to ignore the issue altogether), even though their argument violates the base construct of their philosophical model (all things can be studied and understood by natural means alone)... And thus, will tend to consider humanity unnatural; intelligence unnatural; tools unnatural; all human constructs [such as religion and government] unnatural: even though all such are normal and natural extensions of the human being, both individually and socially... Humanism tends to hit closer to the mark; but it still will continually create distinctive barriers it refuses to cross, even when baseline logic dictates it must be crossed.

Balipo

14-10-2005, 14:32

And it leaps forth... Your true intentions...

My true intentions? To point out that religion has lost it's validity in the modern world and all because it does not apply to modern man? Yup, those are my intentions.

LOL... Once again, the horrid concept of people resisting what is effectively an honest truth.

An honest truth? IF nothing in a religion can be explained, how is it "honest truth". Miracles are an utter sham and can't be proved, where's the honesty?

evolution is evolution.... All evolution is "natural". Does not matter what is "effecting" it, because all effects, are in fact, a product of nature, if you drop down to absolute honesty... There is no such thing as "unnatural" evolution, dealing with things empirically [as you would have it]... Does your contrived religion teach you that humanity is not a product of natural evolution; and itself does not act as a natural evolutionary force? Are humans unnatural in this "non-religion" of yours? Do you really have tunnel-vision this severe?

Actually, manufactured evolution, such as Mendel and his pea plants, and you with your cattle, is considered outside the realm of natural selection and is therefore not Natural Evolution.

Of course humans evolved naturally, although some attributes, like personality and societal mores and norms are contrived unnaturally through development of social structures and rules over time. The idea that as a Man I cannot wear a hat indoors because it is rude is not natural.

As far as "contrived religion", that is just psycho-babble back talk created by the faithful so they seem less foolish.

Oh, the ignorance... Who said "supernatural"? I said "religious". And you're saying religion isn't a natural extention? If it wasn't, then where did it come from? You're opposition to the "supernatural" elements, and to the term "religion" is itself bordering upon a religious conviction.... Oh, the hypocricy of it all......

If religion were not a natural extension; it would not exist.... If religion is not a natural extention, then what external unnatural force endowed mankind with it?

Yes, supernatural. The word means anything above the natural order of things. God is not natural, even in your belief, as he is "omnipresent, omniscient", which is, in nature, impossible. Everything came from something in nature. God, according to the devout, was "always there". Hence he is supernatural.

Mankind endowed mankind with religion. This does not make it natural, it makes it manufactured.

Funny how so many manage to find context and application.

Right...exactly...because you aren't a word twister and semantics user when you want to get your point across?

Man "evolved" religion.... If he did not, it would not be here. And, no mainstream religion is designed as:
A) A way to explain phenomena.
B)A way to avoid understanding.

Those are just the constructs of your own determination based upon your own religious ideologies, which themselves, operate in similtude to the others... You're just in denial.

Really? So why did the cave man decide that the sky gods were angry when storms came? This was natural? No, it was a phenomena he could not explain, therefore it must have a supernatural explaination.

As I said, religion is a human societal function, a product of human nature;an aspect which has evolved into the social human... This cannot be denied from an evolutionary perspective... Comparing it to a "tool" does no service to your Anti-evolutionary dogmatic stance.... tools themselves (honed by man) are a product of "nature"... As man, himself is part of "nature" and that what man does is "natural"... Just as the operations and acts of any other creature... The bow and arrow, or the glock-19 are just as "natural" as the claws of a tiger, or a bear's teeth... Human government, and human religion are just as natural as the wolf-pack or the ant colony... You can't make contrived notions to divorce operations of natural creatures, from the natural creatures themselves; each is the same as the other, intrinsically.... And each operation is a natural course, and an evolutionary aspect of the creature(s), individually, and socially....

I will agree that religion is a human created societal function. In saying this, you point out that it is not natural. And therefore it is subject to becoming outmoded and useless, as it is now.

The bow and arrow and glock are natural? My goodness, are you really that deluded? Humans are born very fragile. They must create defenses, although most that we would need in a world without manufactured weapons (like the bow and arrow or glock) would be available. These include our ability to reason, run upright, climb trees, and communicate vocally.

If you take away our bow and arrow or our gun, we'd survive just fine. Take away a bear's claws or teeth, and that animal WILL DIE.

Balipo

14-10-2005, 14:35

It's not merely materialism; naturalism as a philosophy is guilty of using unfounded assumptions in distinction between mankind and nature as well. And naturalists actually tend to violate such more (materialists tend to ignore the issue altogether), even though their argument violates the base construct of their philosophical model (all things can be studied and understood by natural means alone)... And thus, will tend to consider humanity unnatural; intelligence unnatural; tools unnatural; all human constructs [such as religion and government] unnatural: even though all such are normal and natural extensions of the human being, both individually and socially... Humanism tends to hit closer to the mark; but it still will continually create distinctive barriers it refuses to cross, even when baseline logic dictates it must be crossed.

It seems that you have a grave misunderstanding of Humanism and Naturalism.

Look here for more information (http://www.centerforinquiry.net).

Salihovics

14-10-2005, 14:50

I don't remember who it was that mentioned the apes having consciousness(there was a LOT to read) i have a couple comments about that. I agree with Sierra for the most part and especially on his conclusion (I'm a Muslim with just about the same views). The few points that I disagree with is which particular paradoxes are created by our respective religions, however that would take waay too longto talk about this early in the morning.

Going back to the apes, we are the only animals who are aware of our mortality and have a "consciousness" within the given constraints. Awareness of mortality is scientifically noted by several symptoms. 1. creation of an organized religion. 2. burial of the dead 3. a means of communication.
The only other species that has ever fit the category were the neanderthals. Our parallels in evolution ( just like gorillas and chimps are parallel species of apes, sapiens and neanderthals were parallel descendants of the homo erectus).
Too bad they're all dead, I have a certain respect for them :/ .

Syniks

14-10-2005, 14:53

My true intentions? To point out that religion has lost it's validity in the modern world and all because it does not apply to modern man? Yup, those are my intentions.
<snip>
I will agree that religion is a human created societal function. In saying this, you point out that it is not natural. And therefore it is subject to becoming outmoded and useless, as it is now.You may want to read this interesting article that both refutes and validates your point... Religion didn't begin to wither away during the twentieth century, as some academic experts had prophesied. Far from it. And the new century will probably see religion explode—in both intensity and variety. New religions are springing up everywhere. Old ones are mutating with Darwinian restlessness. And the big "problem religion" of the twenty-first century may not be the one you think

In 1851 the French historian and philosopher Ernest Renan announced to the world that Islam was "the last religious creation of humanity." He was more than a bit premature. At about the time he was writing, the Bahai faith, Christian Science, Mormonism, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and a major Japanese religious movement known as Tenrikyo were all just coming to life. Falun Gong and Pentecostalism—both of which now have millions and millions of members—had yet to emerge. Whoops. ... http://www.teach12.com/ttc/Figs/OhGods2.asp

Tekania

14-10-2005, 16:00

My true intentions? To point out that religion has lost it's validity in the modern world and all because it does not apply to modern man? Yup, those are my intentions.

An honest truth? IF nothing in a religion can be explained, how is it "honest truth". Miracles are an utter sham and can't be proved, where's the honesty?

Actually, manufactured evolution, such as Mendel and his pea plants, and you with your cattle, is considered outside the realm of natural selection and is therefore not Natural Evolution.

considered... But is this intrinsically true? It's still an operation by natural people, using natural effect, by natural gifts and capacity, developed naturally... So, once there is enough "nature" in operation it's not longer natural? Really, take the blinders off man. Does man, who is a natural creature, somehow exist apart from, and seperate from nature?

Of course humans evolved naturally, although some attributes, like personality and societal mores and norms are contrived unnaturally through development of social structures and rules over time. The idea that as a Man I cannot wear a hat indoors because it is rude is not natural.

You've got some serious flaws in your logical progression. "Contrived unnaturally through development of social structures..."? That "development" and that "Social structure" is natural.. And it operates by nature... You still have some innate desire to push, effectively natural elements outside of the natural world, to justify your particular ideological system of belief.

As far as "contrived religion", that is just psycho-babble back talk created by the faithful so they seem less foolish.

Yes, because we know that you have some sort of superior knowledge that somehow transcends nature... No, it's perfectly natural... As are your adherance to your particular system of ideology [read religion].

Yes, supernatural. The word means anything above the natural order of things. God is not natural, even in your belief, as he is "omnipresent, omniscient", which is, in nature, impossible. Everything came from something in nature. God, according to the devout, was "always there". Hence he is supernatural.

God's status regarding the "natural" is of no bearing on this argument. I am dealing with nature only... Which includes the nature of human development, as a society and individuals. Neither government, social order, nor religion are unnatural as applied to the course of human evolution. They are natural extensions of our development, and part of our natural evolution. I'm attempting to limit this to dealing with the natural world here, alone.... Which includes man's natural inclination to social formations, including government and religion.

Mankind endowed mankind with religion. This does not make it natural, it makes it manufactured.

Mankind is natural... What mankind does, and how mankind progresses (even communally, as with government and religion) is as well, natural. Your attempt to divorce the two, is based upon some non-empirical ideological convention, which you will not allow yourself to logically cross into....

To deny man's own acts and thoughts as "natural" is to deny man as a natural creature... If you're operating empically, based upon science alone; you cannot make that assumption. So why do you? Why are man's acts (mankind as a natural creature, exercizing naturally developed aspects) suddenly "unnatural"?

Right...exactly...because you aren't a word twister and semantics user when you want to get your point across?

LOL... Yep, I'm twisting everything... I am of course twisting everything by the natural course of empirical logic... Founding and defining the whole by the natural... Which, accordingly, is what YOU'RE supposed to be doing... But for some unknown, unfoundable reason, won't.

Really? So why did the cave man decide that the sky gods were angry when storms came? This was natural? No, it was a phenomena he could not explain, therefore it must have a supernatural explaination.

Caveman decided that, because it was in Caveman's nature to do so. A creature only acts by it's nature... And that what it does, is always just that. Man is a natural creature, which acts naturally.... Even manufacturing is a natural extension of his natural acts using his natural understanding of the natural world... Religion developed because it was in mankind's nature to develope it.

I will agree that religion is a human created societal function. In saying this, you point out that it is not natural. And therefore it is subject to becoming outmoded and useless, as it is now.

In saying that, I do not point out that it is unnatural... As stated, OVER and OVER and OVER again, man is a natural creature... That what he does, is natural... Which includes the development and progressiong of the entire society (even in religion) as well... Your problem, is that you cannot seem to accept man as a natural creature... Somehow man is "above" nature in your ideology; and therefore himself supernatural... Yet, while continually applying this in your ideology; you empirically deny supernatural elements. It's the most inconsistent logic I've seen come from someone trying to look "Scientific"...

So, when I combine man's natural eveolution as a creature; including his natural evolution of intelligence; his natural evolution and progression into the formation of societal functions (such as religion and government) and his natural progression into the natural exervize of honing tools from nature... All of this nature somehow, suddenly becomes unnatural? Give me a break..

The bow and arrow and glock are natural? My goodness, are you really that deluded? Humans are born very fragile. They must create defenses, although most that we would need in a world without manufactured weapons (like the bow and arrow or glock) would be available. These include our ability to reason, run upright, climb trees, and communicate vocally.

All of our capacities are NATURALLY developed, and all is made from NATURAL elements, by NATURAL processes; including the NATURAL process of our tool making capacity...

If you take away our bow and arrow or our gun, we'd survive just fine. Take away a bear's claws or teeth, and that animal WILL DIE.

Our tools are an extension of our development. Just as a bears claws are. Our development of such "tools" was just as natural as the evolution of a bears claws.... While such "objects" may be external, they are a product of our natural intelligence to develope tools for our own survivial... And WEAPONS are not the only thing involved in this picture.... Say we removed the trowel? Or the harvester? Would humanity suffer massively by this? Such has developed to the extent of man naturally needing to support the advancement of his own species... We develped these things NATURALLY for our survival... We developed arrows, slings, armor, tanks, bombs, etc. for our survival, as societies... They are an extension of humankind as natural animals, attempting to suceed on the planet, in competition with other animals, and each other as people.... Such is natural evolution... Does not matter if another natural creature is part of the equation... anything done by nature, in nature, through nature; is natural... And man IS PART OF NATURE. Your continued religious conviction to the contrary, does nothing to press your point.

Logic is a nasty thing isn't it?.... When it's not siding with your particular ideology....

So, finally, tell me this....

When I use my natrual capacities, to beat a natural hunk of flint, which sheaves naturally by impact, to form a natura edge; and then use this natural tool to shave down a natural tree-branch, with a tip.. and then use this natural spear to hunt a natural animal... Where in this process did all this natural stuff suddenly leave the realm of nature? Therein lays the crutch.... You do not consider man's operations as natural, but a form of supernatural themselves... And yet, "manufacturing" is nothing more than the natural mind of man, utilizing natural laws and functions, to take natural materials to form tools and other things of benefit to his nature... But we're expected to take your Dogmatic belief that all of this somehow magically becomes unnatural seriously... The same applies to man's natural tednency and development of society...

Imaginary lines, and Dogmatic philosophies will not help you here, Balipo.

Willamena

14-10-2005, 16:54

So, you see my point then.

Intelligence is natural, just as the human is natural.

That which intelligence does (such as the formation of community, society and it's extension) is a natural act for the human.

Tool making is "natural".

The effect of natural "tools" forms natural manufacture of these tools.

Sic. nothing is unnatural, realistically speaking. That which is performed by the natural talents, gifts and capacity of the natural man; is an act, itself, of nature. Nature does not merely include the order constituted in the simple forms; but also includes the more complex aspects of nature (such as species inter-relation); including the inter-relation between mankind (in general) and the world and universe around them.

Sic. "manufactured" evolution, is natural evolution; as it is an operation which occurs, regardless of manipulation, by the natural acts, of the exercize of natural capacity, by the natural person. In this same sense, government, and even religion; are natural operations of people, operating according to the dictates and capacity of their natrually evolved state.

It's not merely materialism; naturalism as a philosophy is guilty of using unfounded assumptions in distinction between mankind and nature as well. And naturalists actually tend to violate such more (materialists tend to ignore the issue altogether), even though their argument violates the base construct of their philosophical model (all things can be studied and understood by natural means alone)... And thus, will tend to consider humanity unnatural; intelligence unnatural; tools unnatural; all human constructs [such as religion and government] unnatural: even though all such are normal and natural extensions of the human being, both individually and socially... Humanism tends to hit closer to the mark; but it still will continually create distinctive barriers it refuses to cross, even when baseline logic dictates it must be crossed.
How can you talk about "realistic" when nothing is unreal? How can what you discuss be truth when it doesn't really exist? The strictly materialistic approach is unsupportable simply because you are human: you form opinions, you manipulate ideas, you acknowledge and abide concepts... all immaterial things.

The meaning of "natural" arose in a culture that held to the idealistic attitude inherent in religious people. To use it to describe 'everything that is' is to change its meaning. It changes a lot of meanings in our language. If intelligence is natural, then there is nothing artificial about man-made things. There is no "intrusion" upon nature made by man destroying wildlife habitats. There is no "protected" forests, because our use of them for whatever we want is all a part of nature.

Yes, having intelligence is a natural thing for man, and what he has been given he will naturally use. But humans being unnatural is not a baseless assumption. And it is not belittling, it is empowering. We make the distinction between natural and unnatural not to defy reality but to fit ourselves in with it. We recognize ourselves as individuals, separate and unique from each other, but have moved a step beyond other life-forms in acknowledging a conscious mind separate and apart from the universe around us. In knowing the world the way we do, with our human consciousness, we place ourselves in opposition to it. It is our place in the universe. It is because there is a "me" that there are natural and unnatural things. It has shaped our language and our way of thinking, and this materialism that some promote, in my mind, denies everything that it means to be human.

EDIT: I hope I haven't totally failed to make my point. I'm not exactly thinking clearly at the moment.

Esotericain

14-10-2005, 17:00

>snip<

Agnosticism in a nutshell (mine at least). Beautifully done. I suggest everyone relaly interested in it buy "Baraka". Stunning cinematogrpahy that almost "captures" higher consciousness. Incredible to watch. I'm saving your post (with your name and all) to show others. =)

Sierra BTHP

14-10-2005, 17:03

Agnosticism in a nutshell (mine at least). Beautifully done. I suggest everyone relaly interested in it buy "Baraka". Stunning cinematogrpahy that almost "captures" higher consciousness. Incredible to watch. I'm saving your post (with your name and all) to show others. =)

I've thought it explains why people have any sort of religion at all, across cultures. If it wasn't a deeply felt need (whether a "real" need or not), it wouldn't have cropped up again and again all over the world, all throughout history - and it certainly wouldn't have continued to exist in a world full of viable secular explanations.

Religion is not simply social rules and custom, which can be replaced by laws. Religion is not simply a system to provide explanations of phenomena, which can be replaced by science.

It's something that has to do with our humanity.

Esotericain

14-10-2005, 20:43

Yes. The deepseated connection. I've written a few papers on this phenomenon. Also, studying the mysticisms of all major religions, you come to universal "truths". You come to understand that everything is bound by an energy, and that energy is the creative force behind the world, and when personified by people becomes God. A collective unconscious as Karl Jung proposed. These truths are drawn out through an interpretation of the microcosm, or the universe within, to the macrocosm, or the universe without. Our humanity is the cause of our religion.

Whatever it is, I am positive we are talking about the same thing. We can write hundreds of pages on this and debate for years and still nto come close. All of this has already been repeated in the past by greater minds than ours.

Humanity IS more than simply physical (physical in our definition thereof). After all, thoughts themselves are matter. In essence everytihng is physical, including the need for the connection you speak of.

This is not necessarily something to disprove or prove religions, in fact it is irrelevant whether it does this. The fact is, this connection and energy exists, and we cannot understand it.

Tekania

14-10-2005, 20:57

How can you talk about "realistic" when nothing is unreal? How can what you discuss be truth when it doesn't really exist? The strictly materialistic approach is unsupportable simply because you are human: you form opinions, you manipulate ideas, you acknowledge and abide concepts... all immaterial things.

The meaning of "natural" arose in a culture that held to the idealistic attitude inherent in religious people. To use it to describe 'everything that is' is to change its meaning. It changes a lot of meanings in our language. If intelligence is natural, then there is nothing artificial about man-made things. There is no "intrusion" upon nature made by man destroying wildlife habitats. There is no "protected" forests, because our use of them for whatever we want is all a part of nature.

Yes, having intelligence is a natural thing for man, and what he has been given he will naturally use. But humans being unnatural is not a baseless assumption. And it is not belittling, it is empowering. We make the distinction between natural and unnatural not to defy reality but to fit ourselves in with it. We recognize ourselves as individuals, separate and unique from each other, but have moved a step beyond other life-forms in acknowledging a conscious mind separate and apart from the universe around us. In knowing the world the way we do, with our human consciousness, we place ourselves in opposition to it. It is our place in the universe. It is because there is a "me" that there are natural and unnatural things. It has shaped our language and our way of thinking, and this materialism that some promote, in my mind, denies everything that it means to be human.

EDIT: I hope I haven't totally failed to make my point. I'm not exactly thinking clearly at the moment.

And thus, you have yourself, like they, formed a "religion" of sorts. But you, unlike they, will recognize immaterial elements, and explain a connection, relying on the immaterial (non-empirical).

Unlike you, however, they cannot, within the framework of their created philosophy, actually develop the logical progression needed to refute the immaterial (as you would state it)... Because they place themselves upon the crutch of rational [to them empirical] evidence and progression... Yet, as soon as they attempt to contrive a connection, their logical progression falls to pieces... Because they want, while denying the supernatural, to ASSUME SUCH A STATUS PHILOSOPHICALLY UPON MAN, which itself, denies their first premise of an empirical [only] universe.

My discourse was based from naturalistic/empirialistic philosophy... IOW, it was the formation of a logical progression based upon their base ideology. And how such ideology must view the world, while being true to it's form. As soon as you invoke the immaterial [the non-empirical]; you can no longer lay claim to superiority via science [which is exactly what they are attempting to do... explain away and seperate humanity from nature... which such is itself contrary to the base concept of empirical science]...

This effectively puts them on the exact same ground as the very group they contend against, via their contrived superiority. And removes, what has effectively been used by them as a form of "moral superiority".

Remember, I myself am religious... So if you think I, personally, am a strict materialist, you're sorely mistaken... I do infact believe in the immatterial and the supernatural. What I wonder, however, is why they expouse supernatural elements, while denying the existance of such... And therein lies their problem.

I've more or less learned where philoshophy needs to answer, where religion needs to answer, and where science needs to answer... The two B's on the other hand, have not learned this.... They [much as my above illustration of taking materialism to its absolute extreme of logical progression] have mixed religion, philosophy and empirical science into what is effectively acting in the capacity of religious Dogma and beliefs.

In science there is no "There is no God", In pure science "God" is simply not even a factor. Yet these "scientists" as such, are attempting to invoke some principle of existance towards such, in science... Invalidating any argument they could ever hope to put forward.

If they were actually SCIENTISTS, they would not be attempting to invoke any existance or non-existance on part of the supernatural... It simply would not be a topic of discussion... Their need to invoke it (on an VERY consistent basis) alone tells me exactly where their ideology belongs in its grouping.... a religion...

NationStates Jolt Archive

Consciousness, Spirituality, and The Need For Religion