Reality… how real is it?

[Bro Dave]

While this subject has been implicitly and explicitly debated ad nausium, may I have yet one more stab at it?

We seem to accept that all our arguments end up in relativistic conclusions. We seem to approach reality for two directions; The Atheists from the material, and the Theists from the spiritual. “reality” is for each of us only definable by how we are “wired”, i.e. our thought processes, and by our experiences. So, lets examine each side, and where they are coming from.

Atheists feel smug. They are material/science based. Well, exactly what does that mean? Our current best understanding using String Theory and Quantum Mechanics, seems to bring reality down to energy, vibrating at high frequencies, and in certain patterns. We already have figured out that matter is 99%+ “empty space, and yet, the illusion of solid objects is seen as a reality. Is it? Or, is it just energy, wearing different disguises? And what about my favorite Atheists insistance that because auto replication and auto evolvement exist, there is no need to look further?

Theists feel smug. They have absolute answers, because their answers come,(in some cases) from direct spiritual interactions. And while this absolute proof goes “poof” when they try to offer it to anyone who has not shared such an experience, for them it is absolute. And so, Theists believe in an Absolute Source of energy, providing the drive mechanism for all that is, including a mechanism to produce an evolutionary process, which can be guided to acheive desired results.

(or, is it as the Buddhists say, an illusion? )

The Atheists are left with energy, arranging itself in evolving patterns, and the Theists are left with a source of energy, with a plan to evolve that energy into certain patterns.

It just doesn’t seem like that wide of a gap!

Bro Dave

[harvey1]

I'm surprised then you get that kind of awe from casino tables. I personally don't overly care for prolonged stays in Vegas. (A couple of nights is fun.)

What's this supposed to show Harvey? Does it explain why it's wrong to think that the universe might be unplanned?

My point is that religious scriptures address the importance of the sacred, and they do so by embellishing myths which have a factual basis to them.

I don't recall saying much more than not being convinced by the stuff I was being told at Sunday School. It sounded like a fantasy to me then just as it does now.

So, am I to understand that you were an atheist your whole life? (You don't have to reply to that if you choose not to. I just want to understand what you said when you mentioned, "Oh, I think I've felt it alright, on both sides."

[harvey1]

For me it occurs when I 'realize' the nature of Self and the unity of consciousness that follows.

But, as an atheist, the nature of the self is biological stuff and consciousness is just another adaptation or byproduct of an adaptation.

I have no reason to believe that this sacredness has anything to do with any god but more the sacredness of our awareness of consciousness.

But, it's just an adaptation from your prespective, sort of like primates sniffing each other's butts. Does that instill the feeling of sacredness?

So, in your view, nature is god? Or is Nature in god? Or is god in nature?

God is in nature in the sense that Mozart is "in" the music he composed, and nature is God in the sense that the earth is God's footstool and the universe is God's throne.

[Cathar1950]

Harvey wrote:

But, it's just an adaptation from your prespective, sort of like primates sniffing each other's butts. Does that instill the feeling of sacredness?

Maybe it does to primates. A little crass.

God is in nature in the sense that Mozart is "in" the music he composed, and nature is God in the sense that the earth is God's footstool and the universe is God's throne.

So worship is sniffing God's butt? Awe of the universe is just seeing where God sits.
Maybe that is why when Moses ask to see God he showed him his butt because to see God face to face would kill him.
Abraham had lunch with him and went for a walk. When God was strolling thru the garden one cool evening and couldn't find his caretakers because they were hiding, was he talking to them thru his butt?
Pretty deep Harvey.

[harvey1]

But, it's just an adaptation from your prespective, sort of like primates sniffing each other's butts. Does that instill the feeling of sacredness?

Maybe it does to primates. A little crass.

Sure it's crass, but we can't hope to discuss this subject of sacredness in nature unless we also address those parts of nature which are disgusting to us.

So worship is sniffing God's butt? Awe of the universe is just seeing where God sits. Maybe that is why when Moses ask to see God he showed him his butt because to see God face to face would kill him. Abraham had lunch with him and went for a walk. When God was strolling thru the garden one cool evening and couldn't find his caretakers because they were hiding, was he talking to them thru his butt?
Pretty deep Harvey.

These are issues that confront the atheist who is talking about the sacred as if it is a real property, so it is fair for me to mention them. I think most atheists are honest in saying that there is nothing sacred about nature (i.e., coming from their perspective), and everything is meaningless ("so what?" they might say). However, if an atheist wants to say that some things are sacred (i.e., sacredness is a property of the universe), then they put themselves in the position of saying that grotesque and extremely immoral acts are sacred too.

I don't think theists have to be committed to the notion that everything is sacred. Sacredness could be a property that shines through the darkness, and this light of day can be perceived by humans by looking at this unity acting within nature. It's not a matter of nature being sacred because it is nature, rather nature is sacred because God is immanent in nature.

[QED]

Alright gentlemen. Let's not descend any further into the depths of nastiness. Harvey, I'm not sure if I've inflamed you or not by suggesting that motherly love is an evolutionary imperative. I think you'd have to agree at the very least that it's a valid hypothesis. I appreciate that it might seem utterly distasteful but that would be a subjective judgment.

What I think is worth considering here is the strength of feeling that evolution would have to create in us for the loop to be effectively closed. It's like that old pain argument we were having... the pain has to be real for it to be effective. Any animal getting a wishy-washy or "optional" sensation would carry on and ignore it -- most likely at the expense of passing it's ineffective blueprint onwards. Each one of these evolutionary imperatives would be associated with a very strong feeling or compulsion. Were it possible to think about it and ignore it, then that's where the lineage is likely to stop. And indeed we do see tragic examples from time to time where the "wiring" is faulty and the normal instincts are absent.

As for my reference to being on "both sides" I was referring to the state of mind during a medical emergency wherein it seemed as if the end was suddenly and irrevocably nigh. There was a very memorable feeling of calm which I have heard others put down to being taken up in the arms of God. I personally put it down to "sensible engineering" as there are times when panic and struggle is counterproductive. Again, good old natural selection not be unaware of such a trick, and I can only thank nature for being able to follow a strategy that paid off.

[harvey1]

Alright gentlemen. Let's not descend any further into the depths of nastiness.

I apologize to both of you, I didn't realize that this was nasty. I thought of it as being purely a natural phenomena of nature which I think we all see everytime we watch two dogs play. It's not nasty to me. It's just a fact of nature, but it's just not something that I consider as part of the sacred property of nature.

Harvey, I'm not sure if I've inflamed you or not by suggesting that motherly love is an evolutionary imperative. I think you'd have to agree at the very least that it's a valid hypothesis. I appreciate that it might seem utterly distasteful but that would be a subjective judgment.

I have no problem with evolutionary psychology as well as the evolutionary origins of love, however where I break from that is that I think that evolution is far more complex and human beings far too complicated to assign acts of love to instinct. Similarly, I don't think a human being's love of the sacred and beautiful is purely an instinctual reaction. Although, I'm sure there is an instinctual basis to every human emotion which is noticeable by observing primates.

As for my reference to being on "both sides" I was referring to the state of mind during a medical emergency wherein it seemed as if the end was suddenly and irrevocably nigh. There was a very memorable feeling of calm which I have heard others put down to being taken up in the arms of God. I personally put it down to "sensible engineering" as there are times when panic and struggle is counterproductive. Again, good old natural selection not be unaware of such a trick, and I can only thank nature for being able to follow a strategy that paid off.

How does feeling produce more babies compared to those creatures that didn't have those feelings?

[bernee51]

But, as an atheist, the nature of the self is biological stuff and consciousness is just another adaptation or byproduct of an adaptation.

well done Harvey - you have done as no other thinker has done...you have given us the basis for consciousness. On what do you base this revelation?

But, it's just an adaptation from your prespective, ...

If you insist...unfortunately I have come yo understanfd that your opinions are somewhat coluoured by what you want to believe.

...sort of like primates sniffing each other's butts. Does that instill the feeling of sacredness?

Straw man.

So, in your view, nature is god? Or is Nature in god? Or is god in nature?

God is in nature in the sense that Mozart is "in" the music he composed, and nature is God in the sense that the earth is God's footstool and the universe is God's throne.

Very lyrical Harvey but again your opinion. And I am supposed to take this on your say so.

Not likely.

[bernee51]

Sure it's crass, but we can't hope to discuss this subject of sacredness in nature unless we also address those parts of nature which are disgusting to us.

The 'to us' is the key phrase. They are not disgusting...or othewise. They are as they are. Any values thay have are in the eye of the beholder.

These are issues that confront the atheist who is talking about the sacred as if it is a real property, so it is fair for me to mention them.

The sacred is not 'real property' in the sense that the block of land I am sitting on is real property.

I think most atheists are honest in saying that there is nothing sacred about nature (i.e., coming from their perspective), and everything is meaningless ("so what?" they might say).

Not this atheist Harvey. I just do not align sacredness with 'god'

Sacredness could be a property that shines through the darkness, and this light of day can be perceived by humans by looking at this unity acting within nature.

From your perspective. It is how you percieve it. And when you drop of the twig so will your perspective. How real is your perspective?

It's not a matter of nature being sacred because it is nature, rather nature is sacred because God is immanent in nature.

Sacredeness is attributred by man, as you have aptly demonstrated with your opinion above.

[harvey1]

well done Harvey - you have done as no other thinker has done...you have given us the basis for consciousness. On what do you base this revelation?

So, I take that to mean that you believe that we have souls that go off to heaven when we die? Where is the "a" in your atheism?

...sort of like primates sniffing each other's butts. Does that instill the feeling of sacredness?

Straw man.

And, just why is that a straw man?

The 'to us' is the key phrase. They are not disgusting...or othewise. They are as they are. Any values thay have are in the eye of the beholder.

So, why did you say: "I have no reason to believe that this sacredness has anything to do with any god but more the sacredness of our awareness of consciousness"? It seems that if everything is sacred, then nothing is sacred. That is, you have no way to differentiate the sacred from the profane, or the crass for that matter.

Bernee, are you a Hindu or Buddhist? If so, then in what way are you an atheist..?

[bernee51]

well done Harvey - you have done as no other thinker has done...you have given us the basis for consciousness. On what do you base this revelation?

So, I take that to mean that you believe that we have souls that go off to heaven when we die?

Not on the least - how does my comment elicit that idea?

Where is the "a" in your atheism?

Just in front of the 't'

...sort of like primates sniffing each other's butts. Does that instill the feeling of sacredness?

Straw man.

And, just why is that a straw man?[/quote]
Seen in context you are using a non-relevant analogy to make it easier for your point to be made.

So, why did you say: "I have no reason to believe that this sacredness has anything to do with any god but more the sacredness of our awareness of consciousness"?

I said it because it is what I believe is the source of this feeling of sacredness as described by yourself and others.

It seems that if everything is sacred, then nothing is sacred.

That would be correct.

That is, you have no way to differentiate the sacred from the profane, or the crass for that matter.

As you stated it is a perception - only ther perceiver can differentiate for their own perception - if they so choose to.

Bernee, are you a Hindu or Buddhist? If so, then in what way are you an atheist..?

I am neither a Hindu nor a Buddhist though I freely admit that they (along with other belief systems) have influenced the way I choose to translate what I percieve and/or understand of the universe into something that gives a feeling of meaning and legitimacy.

...in what way are you an atheist..?

Simple - I do not believe in 'gods'.

That said...as a core belief Hinduism is atheistic in that Brahman is not 'god' in the generally accepted definition of a creator/maintainer. And as you are well aware there are many buddhists who regard themselves as not believeing in 'gods'