Believers and Non-Believers

[Nick_A]

Do you consider yourself more a believer or non-believer?

As I se it, the essential difference between a believer and non-believer is that the non-believer must by definition limit their conceptions of human meaning and purpose to earthly life.

Questions like "who am I?" and "Do I have an objective purpose?" have only egotistic, familiar and societal answers.

The believer on the other hand feels a connection to that which is greater then themselves. They feel a connection to a psychological inner direction that leads to the source of objective "meaning." A belieer doesn't have to have rigid beliefs but only the belief that there is life greater than his own.

It is natural for me to sense meaning as having a source beyond my acquired preconceptions, far greater in quality or wholeness, and desire to become open to it. My gut feeling is that it is not the inner search for meaning beyond oneself that is the turn-off to non-believers but the misguided beliefs that often result and the harm caused. But they overreact and deny the search for meaning by limiting it to the results of dual associative thought........a shallow level of reason as compared to contemplation.

But to imagine myself as a non-believer requires me to think what life would be like if I believed that all this contradiction and hypocrisy around me natural for mankind in history as well as in our current lives, was the norm upon which the search for objective meaning and purpose could have meaningful results. That seems absurd. And yet there must be non-believers who think the search for meaning and purpose more than what is open to direct scientific verification is equally absurd. But at least in this way the essential difference between the two becomes more clear.

[bernee51]

Buddhists and Christians will disagree.

With each other?

In Buddhism the Dharma is knowledge of universal laws that also give meaning to humanity.

My understanding of dharma in buddhism is not that it is knowledge per se, but the teachings of the Buddha which lead to enlightenment and the constituent factors of the experienced world - i.e. the underlying order in nature and life.

Naturally since I believe in intelligent design, I believe in objective wisdom or conscious knowledge of the interactions of universal laws.

Can you provide an example of this 'objective wisdom'? (Hopefulyl in your own words)

[bernee51]

Belief in an ineffable something is an incoherent concept, meaningless. To have a belief (hold a particular statement as true), that statement has to convey some understanding, some concept which holds meaning. Saying you believe in something, but labeling the something as ineffable, amounts to you saying you hold [blank] true. There is nothing there, nothing to grasp or visualize or conceptualize or consider whether its true or not. It explains nothing and does nothing to further understanding, and is meaningless.

As you say, ineffable means indescribable which ultimately means it is subjective. The concept in not meaningless, I can understand the concept - the actuality is however meaningless.

The essence of religion isn't comforting but rather awakening. Who feels comfortable being awakened? The involution of religion into its secular forms is of course comforting but this is something different.

You say it is not meaningful and I assert that belief in the false gods of secularism is meaningless. I understand what Simone is saying even though it is a minority belief:

I have no idea what you are talking about here, I don't believe in any gods of secularism. What does that mean??? Define for me "god of secularism", and I'll be able to determine if that definition is something I believe in or not, otherwise you're just playing around with meaningless words again.

Nick would appear to have this belief that religion as it occurs today has somehow 'involved' from a higher consciousness (which is ineffable). The reason for this involution is to allow it to evolve back into its origin.

The fact that there is a clear evolution of religious belief structures - as well as the various god concepts - is a fact which he does his best to ignore. Also ignored is the obvious mirroring of the evolution of human society with the developmental stages of human consciousness.

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

I can't even respond to this, because it's so out there, so incoherent. Maybe it has to do with the word "God" being tossed around in there so carelessly.

Nick seems to hold Simone in almost deity like regard.

In order to understand what is trying to be said it is important to realize how the ideas arose. For example, the 'man has to only persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him' is pretty much the same as the Vedantic idea of neti neti which roughly translates to "not this, not this". It is a way of differentiating ideas of the false self from knowledge of the true Self. In christianity it is known as apophatic theology.

You have your path to reality and Lao-Tzu has his. Must there be a contradiction?

Yes, one is saying we get to reality by looking at the world around us, investigating and experimenting and concluding. The other say's nothing meaningful. it's a feel-good statement to make people believe that they don't have to submit to reality, but can create it themselves!A bit new-ageish.

Ultimately at an individual level perception of reality is a mental construct - to that end we do create our own reality.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

My understanding of dharma in buddhism is not that it is knowledge per se, but the teachings of the Buddha which lead to enlightenment and the constituent factors of the experienced world - i.e. the underlying order in nature and life.

Dharma has several meaning referring to both universal law and subjective human conduct. Understanding this is wisdom.

dhar·ma (därm, dûr-)
n.
1. Hinduism & Buddhism
a. The principle or law that orders the universe.
b. Individual conduct in conformity with this principle.
c. The essential function or nature of a thing.
2. Hinduism Individual obligation with respect to caste, social custom, civil law, and sacred law.
3. Buddhism
a. The body of teachings expounded by the Buddha.
b. Knowledge of or duty to undertake conduct set forth by the Buddha as a way to enlightenment.
c. One of the basic, minute elements from which all things are made.

Can you provide an example of this 'objective wisdom'? (Hopefulyl in your own words)

We are incapable of objective wisdom, it is an attribute of evolved humanity which we are not and prefer living in a dream. It is foolish then to consider objective wisdom from our perspective but recognize it instead as a potential.

The fact that there is a clear evolution of religious belief structures - as well as the various god concepts - is a fact which he does his best to ignore. Also ignored is the obvious mirroring of the evolution of human society with the developmental stages of human consciousness.

Religion has involved from its transcendent level of meaning and purpose to forms of secular humanism that have adapted or become more complex to match further societal complexity. Complexity is not necessarily a sign of evolution or consciousness. Computers can become more sophisticated but that in no way makes them either religious or conscious.

Nick seems to hold Simone in almost deity like regard.

The fact that she died not well known and because of those like T.S.Eliot and Albert Camus discovering organizing and publishing her letters and essays into books she has touched a nerve needing to be touched in spiritually dead society and transformed her into being taught in universities along with those like Kierkegaard. She is not a deity but a very special person with a pure wake-up call and only a few of these are born in a generation.

Ultimately at an individual level perception of reality is a mental construct - to that end we do create our own reality.

Yes we create subjective reality which is the best sleeping humanity can do to interpret objective reality.

I know you believe the soul as Atman which again can have different meanings including not just god but the godhead. If you do see your soul as God it is not surprising that the idea of higher level of consciousness beyond our own within which we are included seems foolish.

[Nick_A]

Here is another false god I forgot to mention: Fame and notoriety

See how these girls will submit themselves to this God even at the expense of another.

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/Ne ... geId=3.3.1

The girls supposedly videotaped the incident because they wanted to put it on YouTube and MySpace. Investigators say it was a payback -- the girls told them that the victim had talked trash about them on her MySpace page, and the wanted to teach her a lesson.

I guess when you think about it, what is so bad? These are educated girls indoctrinated into society and the attitude of the day doing what is natural which is to be noticed which is helpful for their self esteem. Hey, if it feels good, do it. Now that's a god we can all agree with.

Nope, I still believe it is a false god even it is just me and Simone.

[bernee51]

Bernee

My understanding of dharma in buddhism is not that it is knowledge per se, but the teachings of the Buddha which lead to enlightenment and the constituent factors of the experienced world - i.e. the underlying order in nature and life.

Dharma has several meaning referring to both universal law and subjective human conduct. Understanding this is wisdom.

How knowledge is applied is wisdom.

Can you provide an example of this 'objective wisdom'? (Hopefully in your own words)

We are incapable of objective wisdom, it is an attribute of evolved humanity which we are not and prefer living in a dream. It is foolish then to consider objective wisdom from our perspective but recognize it instead as a potential.

You stated: "I believe in objective wisdom or conscious knowledge of the interactions of universal laws" . Are you now acknowledging you do not know what it is? Would you hold objective wisdom to be 'ineffable'

The fact that there is a clear evolution of religious belief structures - as well as the various god concepts - is a fact which he does his best to ignore. Also ignored is the obvious mirroring of the evolution of human society with the developmental stages of human consciousness.

Religion has involved from its transcendent level of meaning and purpose to forms of secular humanism that have adapted or become more complex to match further societal complexity. Complexity is not necessarily a sign of evolution or consciousness. Computers can become more sophisticated but that in no way makes them either religious or conscious.

So all of man's religious beliefs to date are in fact forms of secular humanism? They have nothing at all to do with the 'transcendent'? BTW your computer analogy is a not very subtle straw man.

Ultimately at an individual level perception of reality is a mental construct - to that end we do create our own reality.

Yes we create subjective reality which is the best sleeping humanity can do to interpret objective reality.

Which is the way mankind has dealt with the 'ineffable' since it evolved self aware consciousness - the very first of the 'ineffable'

I know you believe the soul as Atman which again can have different meanings including not just god but the godhead. If you do see your soul as God it is not surprising that the idea of higher level of consciousness beyond our own within which we are included seems foolish.

I do not believe the soul is Atman - nor do I believe the soul is god. I do not see the idea of a higher level consciousness so much as foolish - merely a product of maya. It is of the same caliber as - the universe exists ergo something must have made it.

Where you see consciousness as something that has been visited upon us from above - I see it as a natural product of the evolution of the nervous system.

What holds primacy - existence or consciousness

[Nick_A]

Bernee

How knowledge is applied is wisdom.

Agreed. We can know chess but how we understand chess is defined by the quality of our game

You stated: "I believe in objective wisdom or conscious knowledge of the interactions of universal laws" . Are you now acknowledging you do not know what it is? Would you hold objective wisdom to be 'ineffable'

Objective wisdom is an attribute of conscious humanity. Consciousness is our potential. How can we, asleep in Plato's cave, be able to actualize objective wisdom? Knowing laws and seeing their results is far from the perception of their source.

So all of man's religious beliefs to date are in fact forms of secular humanism? They have nothing at all to do with the 'transcendent'? BTW your computer analogy is a not very subtle straw man.

They are on the exoteric. I believe in three levels of religion corresponding to man's conscious evolution. The lowest is the exoteric followed by the esoteric and completing at the transcendent level. A diagram can be found here.

http://www.integralscience.org/unity.html

The exoteric level where all the misunderstanding occurs is secular in nature.

Where you see consciousness as something that has been visited upon us from above - I see it as a natural product of the evolution of the nervous system.

This requires proof. You need to provide the reason for it. Things don't happen by themselves since there is no direction. There is no biological advantage to conscious self awareness.

[bernee51]

Objective wisdom is an attribute of conscious humanity. Consciousness is our potential.

Consciousness is an evolving continuum. Our potential is to continue that evolution.

How can we, asleep in Plato's cave, be able to actualize objective wisdom?

By a realization that we are the cave.

So all of man's religious beliefs to date are in fact forms of secular humanism? They have nothing at all to do with the 'transcendent'? BTW your computer analogy is a not very subtle straw man.

They are on the exoteric. I believe in three levels of religion corresponding to man's conscious evolution. The lowest is the exoteric followed by the esoteric and completing at the transcendent level. A diagram can be found here.

http://www.integralscience.org/unity.html

The exoteric level where all the misunderstanding occurs is secular in nature.

Shadows on the wall of the cave.

Where you see consciousness as something that has been visited upon us from above - I see it as a natural product of the evolution of the nervous system.

This requires proof. You need to provide the reason for it. Things don't happen by themselves since there is no direction.

Who claims evolution has direction? As for the evolution of consciousness I recommend Dennett's Consciousness Explained pp 171 to 226. I have previously recommended Humphrey's Seeing Red. Both give coherent and complimentary theories as to how and why consciousness evolved. Evolution has not stopped with the emergence of self aware consciousness with clear developmental levels emerging and continuing to emerge.

There is no biological advantage to conscious self awareness.

Ya reckon. Which of the species of primates has been the most biologically successful?

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Consciousness is an evolving continuum. Our potential is to continue that evolution.

Yes we evolve back to where we involved from.

By a realization that we are the cave.

That is the beginning, a foundation, but far from completion.

Shadows on the wall of the cave.

Written by one in the cave or from outside the cave?

Who claims evolution has direction? As for the evolution of consciousness I recommend Dennett's Consciousness Explained pp 171 to 226. I have previously recommended Humphrey's Seeing Red. Both give coherent and complimentary theories as to how and why consciousness evolved. Evolution has not stopped with the emergence of self aware consciousness with clear developmental levels emerging and continuing to emerge.

The fallacy of appealing to authority. In this case Dennett is not even a good authority.

Ya reckon. Which of the species of primates has been the most biologically successful?

The capacity for associative thought is not conscious awareness. Conscious awareness is the awareness of reactive awareness. When man survives as long as the cockroach that will be something.

At times like this I have more gratitude for those like Simone Weil who are leaders in the unification of science and religion. It is not only vital for human survival but for the psychological welfare of the young being bombarded by technology and secularism while starved for meaning.

Amazon sent me an add for a new book:



Looking a bit inside the book I see that Vance Morgan touches on some meaningful ideas the young will not learn from education. But since she is becoming more popular as well as the writings of those like of Dr. Needleman, there is now an undercurrent of information that offers the alternative to the present madness and the advantage of the unification of science and religion.

Thank the powers that be that there is still an oasis in the desert where those that thirst for meaning can find others like themselves.

[bernee51]

Consciousness is an evolving continuum. Our potential is to continue that evolution.

Yes we evolve back to where we involved from.

Seems a bit clumsy - nature does not strike me as that clumsy. The mechanism by which the evolution took place is evidenced...unlike the so called 'involution' - which BTW you likened to erosion.

By a realization that we are the cave.

That is the beginning, a foundation, but far from completion.

So what is 'complete'?

Shadows on the wall of the cave.

Written by one in the cave or from outside the cave?

To exist an communicate within the phenomenal world there is no choice bu to be 'in the cave'. That does not mean however that it is not possible to recognise the shadows for what they are.

Who claims evolution has direction? As for the evolution of consciousness I recommend Dennett's Consciousness Explained pp 171 to 226. I have previously recommended Humphrey's Seeing Red. Both give coherent and complimentary theories as to how and why consciousness evolved. Evolution has not stopped with the emergence of self aware consciousness with clear developmental levels emerging and continuing to emerge.

The fallacy of appealing to authority.

If I claimed truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it I would agree. This I did not do. If you do not care to investigate yourself the various theories as to the evolution of consciousness you are arguing from ignorance. besides I have previously set out a brief summary of Humphrey's theory.

In this case Dennett is not even a good authority.

Because you say so?

Ad hominem

Ya reckon. Which of the species of primates has been the most biologically successful?

The capacity for associative thought is not conscious awareness.

It is, however, the pathway to conscious awareness.

Do these words ring familiar "...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... ."

What, if not associative thought, is Simone using to in order to allow god to present itself.

Conscious awareness is the awareness of reactive awareness.

Indeed - it is recognising the illusion of an individual self. Like Simone's apophatic theology Vedanta uses 'neti neti' - a process of associative thought to the same end. Just as Vipassana uses associative thought to allow awareness to arise.

When man survives as long as the cockroach that will be something.

Indeed - I was not comparing man to insects - only to its fellow primates.

An aside: if all the insects were destroyed mankind would soon follow. If all of mankind was destroyed the insects would not notice.

[Catharsis]

>>>the essential difference between a believer and non-believer...<<<

Is it correct if I assume the following (?):
- Believer: a person that believes in God/'spiritual mode of life';
- Non-believer: a person that rejects God and/or anything to do with 'spirituality'.

Christian teaching recognizes three modes of living: the carnal, the psychic and the spiritual. Each of these is characterized by its own particular attitude of life, distinctive to itself and dissimilar to that of the others.

The carnal mode of life is one wholly devoted to the pleasures and enjoyments of this present life, and has nothing to do with the psychic and spiritual modes of life, and does not even have any wish to acquire them.

The psychic mode, which is situated on the borderline between evil and virtue, is preoccupied with the care and strengthening of the body and with men's praise; it not only repudiates the labors required for virtue, but also rejects carnal indulgence. It avoids both virtue and vice but for opposite reasons: virtue because this requires toil and discipline; vice because that would entail forfeiting men's praise.

The spiritual mode of life, on the other hand, has nothing in common with these two other modes.