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]

Which is why I prefer instead to examine the context of this sort of material. Very often when watching an old movie that is supposed to represent some historical event, we actually gain more of an insight into the period in which the movie was made (verbal and body language, haircuts etc.). In other words people can't help but leave their fingerprints on everything they touch. Also, in courts of law, motive is frequently a component of the evidence. If we are presented with something that we are asked to take on trust, we do well to examine the motives behind the act.

I think what both of you are missing is the "inspiration dimension" of what Bro Dave brings forth. Of course the individual who wrote that is transcribing their thoughts into a different period using Jesus as the authoritative figure by which to present their thoughts, but so what? The best seller "Conversations with God" also uses God to espouse the views of Neale Donald Walsch. Most of the words and deeds ascribed to Jesus in the early Christian period were also of this literary type of construction.

This is a major engine in how religion evolves. Myth is embellished by this process, and as a result a new attractor basin eventually forms where a new interpretational worldview forms, and previous inspired literature that is not conducive to this new attractor basin is either ignored or eliminated. Later the historians, theologians, and those seeking the "truth" seek to determine what was really said, and they come away with the shocking news that Jesus didn't actually say and do everything in the Holy Scriptures.

In my view, though, this does not change the truths discovered by this process. The truth lies in the process of inspiration and formation of the attractor basin that gives meaning to many people's lives. Often this is attacked by those people who are later bitter about their earlier religious experiences, or their shock in finding that their naive realism was... er... naive, and they become upset about it. These people miss the point, and it's probably why I have so little sympathy for them. They need to see the beauty in religion.

So, whereas I personally don't see much importance in Dave's scriptures, I recognize that they are meaningful to him. And, I respect and share that excitement that he has. Perhaps he'll someday quote something that I find inspirational, and perhaps other people will use those thoughts in a new generation of inspirational literature.

[QED]

Which is why I prefer instead to examine the context of this sort of material. Very often when watching an old movie that is supposed to represent some historical event, we actually gain more of an insight into the period in which the movie was made (verbal and body language, haircuts etc.). In other words people can't help but leave their fingerprints on everything they touch. Also, in courts of law, motive is frequently a component of the evidence. If we are presented with something that we are asked to take on trust, we do well to examine the motives behind the act.

I think what both of you are missing is the "inspiration dimension" of what Bro Dave brings forth. Of course the individual who wrote that is transcribing their thoughts into a different period using Jesus as the authoritative figure by which to present their thoughts, but so what? The best seller "Conversations with God" also uses God to espouse the views of Neale Donald Walsch. Most of the words and deeds ascribed to Jesus in the early Christian period were also of this literary type of construction.

This is a major engine in how religion evolves. Myth is embellished by this process, and as a result a new attractor basin eventually forms where a new interpretational worldview forms, and previous inspired literature that is not conducive to this new attractor basin is either ignored or eliminated. Later the historians, theologians, and those seeking the "truth" seek to determine what was really said, and they come away with the shocking news that Jesus didn't actually say and do everything in the Holy Scriptures.

In my view, though, this does not change the truths discovered by this process. The truth lies in the process of inspiration and formation of the attractor basin that gives meaning to many people's lives. Often this is attacked by those people who are later bitter about their earlier religious experiences, or their shock in finding that their naive realism was... er... naive, and they become upset about it. These people miss the point, and it's probably why I have so little sympathy for them. They need to see the beauty in religion.

So, whereas I personally don't see much importance in Dave's scriptures, I recognize that they are meaningful to him. And, I respect and share that excitement that he has. Perhaps he'll someday quote something that I find inspirational, and perhaps other people will use those thoughts in a new generation of inspirational literature.

It obviously doesn't bother you then, that so many people present this stuff as facts rather than poetry. This is where we would differ in our outlooks. You see, I worry that if people take it literally then they get unnecessarily confused by things. I mentioned to joer in the topic titled the nature of spirit that some might believe they are being channeled by the Devil when they start feeling randy for example. I don't think it's a trivial example; it's pretty easy to show that there's a simple explanation for these fundamental instincts based on evolutionary imperatives, yet for the superstitious, allegories that attempt to explain things in the language of demons and devils seem to me to offer no end of misery and fear.

To me it's like the panic over the radio adaptation of "The war of the worlds" - had it been made clear that it was fictional people would still have gotten the message of the plot but not been scared half to death over it.

[harvey1]

It obviously doesn't bother you then, that so many people present this stuff as facts rather than poetry. This is where we would differ in our outlooks. You see, I worry that if people take it literally then they get unnecessarily confused by things. I mentioned to joer in the topic titled the nature of spirit that some might believe they are being channeled by the Devil when they start feeling randy for example. I don't think it's a trivial example; it's pretty easy to show that there's a simple explanation for these fundamental instincts based on evolutionary imperatives, yet for the superstitious, allegories that attempt to explain things in the language of demons and devils seem to me to offer no end of misery and fear.

It does bother me that religion can also represent the worst of human beings. However, my experience is that religion is beautiful, and that's true across the world. I've had the opportunity to share in the faith of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists throughout the world, and it is a very good thing. Religious maturity can address the abuse that you cite, and that makes for a better world than one in which religion does not exist. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

[QED]

It does bother me that religion can also represent the worst of human beings. However, my experience is that religion is beautiful, and that's true across the world. I've had the opportunity to share in the faith of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists throughout the world, and it is a very good thing. Religious maturity can address the abuse that you cite, and that makes for a better world than one in which religion does not exist. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Of course there can never be too much beauty in the world and babies should always be spared the indignities you mention. But what is going on with all this unquestioned story telling? The story may or may not have any relation to actuality and the more detail it goes into the less likely this seems to be. You seem to be suggesting that we drop our regular approach to working out if someone is telling us a factual or fictional story on the basis that it's a good story. I find this highly irrational.

If we have no way of telling the baby from the bathwater who knows what we're feeding, clothing and sending out into the world?

[harvey1]

But what is going on with all this unquestioned story telling? The story may or may not have any relation to actuality and the more detail it goes into the less likely this seems to be. You seem to be suggesting that we drop our regular approach to working out if someone is telling us a factual or fictional story on the basis that it's a good story. I find this highly irrational. If we have no way of telling the baby from the bathwater who knows what we're feeding, clothing and sending out into the world?

I agree that there must be some reality for a story if the reality of those events are important. For example, fiction must be distinguished from non-fiction if the content of the story is not of any relevance. However, if we are trying to grasp the importance and significance of the religious experience, then story telling becomes a very appropriate means by which to relate those experiences. I'm reminded how Jesus spoke in parables. Now, it seems to me to be an irrelevant issue as to whether there really was a prodigal son, or whether there really was a lord who entrusted certain subjects with power over his kingdom while he was away, etc..

[QED]

I'm reminded how Jesus spoke in parables. Now, it seems to me to be an irrelevant issue as to whether there really was a prodigal son, or whether there really was a lord who entrusted certain subjects with power over his kingdom while he was away, etc..

Which raises the immediate thought of the Biblical story of Jesus as being a meta-parable. If this thought is indeed what we have before us then shouldn't we know that this is the case? The arguments seem to be that we don't need to know the actual reality -- the virtual reality being "what is best for us". Well, in this case I would like to know who elected whoever it was that decided this and how they got to speak for me.

[harvey1]

Which raises the immediate thought of the Biblical story of Jesus as being a meta-parable. If this thought is indeed what we have before us then shouldn't we know that this is the case?

I'm not sure what you are getting at, Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and so we know that there were 12 apostles and that he had risen from the grave, that he was betrayed, that he instructed the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as a memorable of his death, that he was crucified, etc., etc..

[QED]

I'm not sure what you are getting at, Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and so we know that there were 12 apostles and that he had risen from the grave, that he was betrayed, that he instructed the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as a memorable of his death, that he was crucified, etc., etc..

You're behaving as though I'm the first person to ever question how much of this story is true! I thought it was an interesting point that should time travel ever be possible in humanities future then it would be virtually inevitable that people would return to see if Jesus really did rise from the dead. We ought to expect a large crowd of people (say around 500) to show up for the ascension

[Bugmaster]

Why does a story need to be religious in order to inspire people ? Why can't it be plain old fiction ?

I personally do find fiction inspirational (though, oddly, I find War And Peace to be a bit boring, but that's another story). It seems that Jesus would agree with me, since he spoke in parables -- which are fiction.

I'm with QED on this one. Inspiration is one thing, factual statements are another. They shouldn't be confused. Otherwise, what you get is a population of people who feel that only true stories can be inspirational, and, therefore, the Bible (or the Quran, or whatever) must be literally true, or it has no meaning. We call these people "fundamentalists", and they're bad news.

[harvey1]

Why does a story need to be religious in order to inspire people? Why can't it be plain old fiction?

Plain ole' fiction can inspire, but it takes religion in order to see and comprehend what sacred means.

Inspiration is one thing, factual statements are another. They shouldn't be confused. Otherwise, what you get is a population of people who feel that only true stories can be inspirational

Facts come with interpretations, and interpretations are mainly subjective, especially when the factual concept is more complex. I personally find more meaning in a religious story by first looking at the fundamentalist interpretation, and then seeking the deeper and more spiritual meaning of the text. (Btw, we are in the philosophy sub-forum so let's try and avoid a discussion on the support of Christianity here.)

and, therefore, the Bible (or the Quran, or whatever) must be literally true, or it has no meaning. We call these people "fundamentalists", and they're bad news.

Well, I think fundamentalism is the first level to spiritual understanding. It's a good step, but of itself it must be followed up with deeper understanding. Unfortunately, those people who lose faith in their fundamentalism become atheist fundamentalists. They never spiritually grow as a result.