"I think that it is helpful to understand Christianity as a religious antidote to religion."

WHAT!? The zombie carpenter whose family didn't have sex for two generations, who asked his friends to stick their fingers in the whole in his side, who ascended to heaven to the accompaniment of an earthquake and a zombie attack that somehow never made it into history; this is an ANTIDOTE to bizarre and irrational beliefs?

Peter, I am counting off the days till you renounce this nonsense altogether. It can't be very long now.

That should be 'hole', of course. But not a God-shaped one, as far as I know.

It is just another way of saying. "Other belief systems called religions are lacking. We have the real goods." Islam or any other missionary religion makes a similar statement. No, Peter, your brand of rubbish is still rubbish.

There’s a need for pleasure – some choose outdoor activities, some dinning, and others drugs to excess. Do I therefore deny the need for pleasure because of the variety of choices made? I may take drugs to excess and die, but have I rendered the need for pleasure meaningless in the process?

The denial of an innate need for God on the basis of the variety of ways it is satisfied seems equally as ill founded. That need has been demonstrated throughout history.

There are two stances that can be used to think on this idea: God created us and implanted that need, or the need led to the creation of God in whatever form chosen. How does one answer which holds true? This is highly problematical.

Epistemology is the theory of truth addressing the problems of knowing truth. It is easy to become nihilistic and believe there is no truth; the tension then never needs to be solved. This is the ultimate act of arrogance - the idea that either I know something to be true or else it can’t be true sets me as being God, the final arbiter.

Is there truth outside myself? Does truth exist because I created it or does it exist in its own right no matter how problematical its knowing may be? If truth exists then falsity also exists, a choice is inevitable. Therein lies the existential dilemma.

If truth and falsity don’t exist then Nihilism is victorious. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

As for atheism we delude ourselves into imagining by knowing how something happens we know why.

Before arrogantly denying the article’s argument commentators may wish to contemplate Christ’s words of “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” Are these words of liberation or oppression?

Well, said Cronus.

How come so many Christian churches ignore that advice?

I've got no issues with Jesus. It's religious institutions that are the boil on the bum of progress.

Sells,

You start off quite well, proposing a pre-priming for language acquisition and extending this idea to other experiences. It is false to leap directly to the god-shaped hole (either to exploit or deny) and who cares if proposing such interferes with temporal protestant dogma?

Numerous animals display behaviours that assume the presence of another: Parents, real ones, with seemingly god-like powers of protecton, side-taking, guidance and food provision, are woefully absent from your discussion.

Dennett and others have quite adequately explained that the vestigial expectation that "daddy" or "mummy" can get you out of trouble, "make it all better" or provide correction and shriving could easily underlie the adult hope for a "super daddy" that can deal with the hopeless situations facing a nomadic tribe.

Such a plausible circumstance surely helps understand why *so many* religions *do* "fit the hole".

You have asserted that there is no god-shaped hole to correspond to language acquisition readiness, but it is plain from simple observation that there *is* a parent or carer acquisition readiness. Until the possibility that such a "parent-hole" might be co-opted, applied to imaginary or unmeetable desires possibly made more urgent by circumstances or cultural conditioning, it is hardly worth speculating about a "god-hole". All associated behaviours might be adequately explained by a "parent-hole". This is entirely reasonable from an evolutionary perspective, so why try to say otherwise?

You have not adequately explained how your proposed "proclivity to be attracted" actually differs from a god/parent hole, except that it would suit you.

"Questionable content" is exactly how I would describe the portmanteau of ideas that christianity tries to conflate with the parent-hole.

Since we *don't* take the creation mythology seriously, it hardly helps to assume we do, nor does it clarify your point which I believe deeply flawed through disingenuously avoiding a known biological feature.

Rusty

At last, and inevitably, the ancient exoteric rulerships have failed, and "official" Christian-ISM, along with all the other "great" world religions or merely exoteric religion-POWER, is now reduced to all the impenetrable illusions and decadent exercises that everywhere characterize previously privileged aristocracies in their decline from worldly power.
Exoteric Christianity now consists of over 30,000 corporate cults ALL competing for market share in the market place of religious consumerism. This resulting imbecile chaos is dominated by strutting Barnumesque propagandists who "rule" nothing more than chaotic herds of self-deluded religion consumers.

PT Barnum was of course wrong - countless thousands of suckers are born every minute.

Therefore, the myth (lie) of the "cultural superiority" of official Christian-ISM has now come full circle. The power and control seeking religious mythologies of the dominant world religions (especially Christian-ISM and Islam-ISM) are not only now waging global warfare with one another - like so many psychotic inmates asylums for the mad, each confronting the other with exclusive claims of personal absoluteness.

But the public masses of religion-bound people, who all over the world, for even thousands of years, have been controlled in body and mind by ancient institutions of religiously propagandized WORLDLY-POWER, are now in a globalized state of grossly bound delusion and social PSYCHOSIS.

My point of departure, as always, is where Mr Sellick moves away from the "supreme being" issue, and claims all the tasty religious goodness for Christianity.

That has never made any sense to me. Surely, if you have convinced yourself that there is such a thing as God, you should not be at all surprised that others may have arrived at the same conclusion, but with a different set of rules.

We acquire our first language skills from our immediate family. We then learn, over time, that there are different languages, and, similarly, that there are different religions.

We may think our own language is preferable, because of its familiarity. But we know that others prefer theirs, for the same reason.

The same applies - or rather, should apply - to one believer's attitude towards another. While individuals may find comfort in the familiarity of their own belief system, they should understand that an equally strong force binds others to theirs.

Each religion seeks to explain the "why" of our existence, with the help of an external metaphysical concept. It is the fact that humans have evolved a brain that enables us to ask these questions - and fail to find a complete answer from the facts available - that leaves the "hole".

Which is where people stick their religious beliefs.

Some people will fill their hole completely with their chosen religion, to the point where nothing else seems to matter. Others will simply stuff as much as they need into the hole, and ignore the fact that there are still gaps around the edges - it works for them, so that's fine. They are less interested in the theology, than in the fact that they can go about their daily lives without fretting too much about the universe.

Some religions, too, seek to spack-fill the hole completely. Others are content to wield it as a comforting adjunct to the daily routine - Rowan Williams' approach springs to mind.

But claiming that there is only one religion, and one approach to religion that "works", rings serious warning bells.

Peter, it appears that you are quite happy to embrace neuropsychiatric explanations for language, but shy away when it comes to religious belief.

I suspect that this is because a neuropsychiatric explanation for religious belief pulls the rug out from under God.

Pericles you describe the state of affairs well with some potent imagery involving spack filler.

Religious folk like Sellick cannot and will not argue the non-existence of God, even while religious ideology is so wound up in the neuropsychiatric explanation. It would be difficult to claim there is a God but here are his rules, and then argue it is all in the mind but for your own good. However many come to that conclusion for themselves or fill the hole in other ways. Some theists and members of the congregation are moving that way and Christianity, like other religions present a mixed bag (such is the variation in human beings).

Spiritual awareness whether one dances naked in the forest, tosses a few runes, sits with crystals, prays to a deity or adheres to a code such as Buddhism, it all purports to fill the same 'hole'.

There is indeed much more to human psychology and begs the question of why there is a hole? Why are human beings not happy living in the now and with the bounty of what lays in front of them (if we don't destroy it first). Perhaps we have satisfied our basic survival needs and need to 'fill' the higher order needs, but that does not explain primitive man's grasp of rituals and beliefs. Perhaps there is a relationship even there. It is often said God is for the poor man/woman because it gives strength and gets them through to the next meal, and for the richer man/woman fills the vacuum of excess. Who knows, I am no psychologist - religion and spirituality are interesting phenomena.

As per Pericles' last sentence, the problems arise when the various spiritual beliefs all claim their brand of spack filler is the best and that does indeed set off the alarm bells.

Thank you Peter. Your article is worth much further thought.

Cronus: Rather than “seeking truth” as the goal of life, I suggest it is wiser to try to “be true” to myself and for us to “be true to one another”. I think of truth not so much as an objective as a matter of relationality. I suspect you may agree with this.

Briar Rose: The religious institutions are important as the bearers of wisdom, symbols and useful practice from the past. Like institutions of any sort they must be continually re-appraised and renewed to avoid ossification.

Rusty Catheter: As far as the “parent-hole” goes, Dennet and his flock are simply echoing what Freud proposed long before them. On that question Jung went much further than Freud in his life-long investigation of the psyche. He showed that once a person has dealt successfully with the relationship with the parents the evolving psyche tends to move on past the personal unconscious and into the deeper unconscious where the “proclivity” that Peter Sellick has alluded to needs to be dealt with. Some Christians are still dealing with the personal (Freudian) factors, other Christians are grappling with the more impersonal issues.

Clownfish: Your brief post implies that there actually is a” neuropsychiatric explanation for religious belief”. What is it?

Pericles and Pelican: I agree that it is a very bad thing for one religion to claim triumph over all others. Nevertheless I think you might be seeing in Peter Sellick’s article far more triumphalism than there actually is. He is after all arguing for the minimalising of religion.

And the question of why there is a “hole” to be filled at all? I would say that it is not a hole in the sense of a vacuum because it is already occupied with living force. The problem is that the human mind cannot deal with that force without first giving it an image. And that image must vary among cultures and with human evolution.

crabsy: Neither you nor Sells have given any reason to presume that this (oh so subtle) "proclivity" is a genuine thing. You *claim* it is more subtle, more sophisticated etc. *but* you make no effort other than to assert so. Jung, Freud etc may have meandered speculatively about such, but this is not in any way a demonstration that appropriation of "parent readiness" is not fully explanatory.

"My car looks just like yours, goes about as fast etc but mine is "special" because I feel better about it that way" nyer nyer."

Much wordy effort is made to pretend that the above sentence doesn't touch the majesty and humble subtlety of the precious thought you have that is just so far beyond us poor heathens, but the problem is that it seems an adequate summary.

The extensive use of parental imagery as a descriptor of "god" (like your father but more so) is so pervasive that it is disingenuous to try and discuss the issue without a genuine exploration of the *most* that a "parent-hole" might explain, rather than conveniently ignoring or belittling it.

Rusty

We are all part of the force that created the universe.
In fact all of the matter that makes up our body is taken from
the elements of the universe and our lives are directed by that force.
We don't have to tie ourselves up in knots, following blindly one religion or the other.
What force is it that puts a picture of two eyes on the back of a butterfly's wings to discourage predators?
This may sound strange, but I believe that the internet is also part of that force and is evolving according to that principle.
One day in the very very distant future we might type in "God" into the search engine and find Him!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...uh!

Sorry, I went to sleep reading this article. Same old, same old nonsense.

This is 2012, isn't it? We're supposed to be intelligent, aren't we? Yawnnnnnnnn...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..

There's no point trying to change the subject, crabsy.

>>Pericles and Pelican: I agree that it is a very bad thing for one religion to claim triumph over all others. Nevertheless I think you might be seeing in Peter Sellick’s article far more triumphalism than there actually is. He is after all arguing for the minimalising of religion.<<

You introduced the concept of "triumph" yourself, crabsy. Neither pelican nor I suggested it.

We simply agreed that at its simplest level, the belief that one's own religion is the "one and only" has so often been at the heart of many activities that disrupt society.

As for a suggestion that religion be "minimalized", I fail to see Mr Sellick offering one.

Here's his view of "folk religion, that comforting concoction of nice sayings..."

"All of these expressions fall under the axe of radical Christian belief."

A minimalist axe, possibly? With the absolute minimum of radicalism?

"...we do not go to church to feel good, we go to church to be confronted by the truth. That can be a dangerous and disorienting experience"

But minimally dangerous, perhaps? And only mildly disorienting?

>>I would say that it is not a hole in the sense of a vacuum because it is already occupied with living force.<<

We must be talking about different holes.

I see holes in terms of their emptiness, rather than in terms of their containing a "living force" - another concept that is uniquely crabsian.

Mr Sellick's holes are themselves noticeably unoccupied:

"a “God shaped hole” and along with it a yearning for that hole to be filled... all religion was essentially the same and was able to fill the “God shaped hole...etc."

>>Thank you Peter. Your article is worth much further thought.<<

First, crabsy, I suggest you read it again, more carefully. That will help you to stay on-topic.

Crabsy : *The religious institutions are important as the bearers of wisdom, symbols and useful practice from the past. Like institutions of any sort they must be continually re-appraised and renewed to avoid ossification.*

a) they don't continually reappraise and renew
b) they are ossified as a consequence
and
c)the institutions don't bear the wisdom - the writings bear the wisdom, be they Christian or other faiths.

All religious institutions do is interpret the writings according to whatever human prejudice is in ascendency at the time, then call it god's word and will and do their best to inflict it on the entire human race.

Like I said, I've got no problems with Jesus.

As L. Cohen says:

*it was you who built the temple
it was you who covered up my face*

The fact that the brain comes pre wired with certain innate software is as a result of evolution. Any creature that has to learn everything is doomed. However, the learning ability is to ensure that man is infinitely adaptable.

The "god hole" can be explained as the human desire to find explanations for what has for centuries been unexplainable. Even as we find the answers, most do not have the ability to understand them. God is used to fill the gaps.

Pericles: Why is it that so often you attribute to me intentions that are simply not there?

<< There's no point trying to change the subject, crabsy.>>

Does some trait of my language give you the impression of an intention to deceive or at least to “win” the debate by any means? Whatever the reason, I assure you I had no such intention. I was sure as I wrote that I was on the topic, but you obviously believe the topic to be something else. And my aim in participating in these threads is not to “win” but basically to improve my understanding of my own mind and others’ minds, while also helping them to understand me.

Still, let’s proceed.

<<You introduced the concept of "triumph" yourself, crabsy. Neither pelican nor I suggested it.>>

Well, I thought I was reflecting your perspective. If “triumph” was an inadequate word for this I stand corrected.

<<We simply agreed that at its simplest level, the belief that one's own religion is the "one and only" has so often been at the heart of many activities that disrupt society.>>

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

I will indeed take your advice and read the article again. I will then return to the rest of your post.

Rusty: You seem to say that I want to ignore or belittle the notion of the “parent-hole”.

<<The extensive use of parental imagery as a descriptor of "god" (like your father but more so) is so pervasive that it is disingenuous to try and discuss the issue without a genuine exploration of the *most* that a "parent-hole" might explain, rather than conveniently ignoring or belittling it.>>

I certainly don’t and certainly did not say so in my post. The notion does, as I said, apply helpfully to understanding the position of some Christians. And, as I said, Freud would broadly agree with you. The notion of a “parent-hole” does not, however, apply to the position of some other Christians.

2 parts to any good religion:
1 - Existential crisis: Why is anything here?
2 - Morals: I'm here...how should I behave, what is important?

None of them solve the first one. God just pushes the question back and makes it worse...also makes no sense. Complexity comes from simplicity, not the other way around. The Void and Tao do solve it but need contemplation and meditation to "get"...too hard for most.

The second one, surprisingly, folks are generally in agreement. The 10 commandments are mostly innate in (most) humans and even monkeys and rats have some innate morality...I suspect all social animals do.

The real issue is that religion is cultural...truth and functionality are not important as compared to identity.
Functionally, it takes a secular culture to handle the modern world: Technology demands bottom up decisions and real humility (machines cannot be bullied), religious culture, if not dogma demands top-down processes if they are to remain whole.
Look at the *growth* of the wealth of nations...always associated with secular practice. Look at "dark age" phase of nations...always associated with religious control at government level. Don't believe me, study the history on this one!

Really interesting article, but like most writing mixing science and religion...mostly pointless.

Very well then Crabsy.

we'll just to wait and see if Sells has any reason that is not gobbledegook why this "proclivity" is justified in being special, rather than coopted from something mundane, and incidentally why all those just as convincingly satisfied with their own religion are wrong.

Rusty

This world IS, itself Unqualified Existence, Being, Consciousness, Intelligence, Love-Bliss, Power, Form, and Beauty.REAL Intelligence is tacit or intrinsically wordless living existence.

This world is simply the Process of Love-Bliss.

REAL Intelligence is tacit or intrinsically wordless living existence.

Reality does not think. The naturally existing world does not think. Naturally existing beings, both human and non-human do not think.

Reality IS what IS, rather than what is thought to be. Reality merely, and Always Already,IS - before time, and space, and thinker, and thought, and knower, and known, and subject, and object, and ego-"I", and other, are objectified by stress created conceptual and perceptual acts.

What do we really know?

That the fear-saturated mortal meat-body and its associated social-personality, with which we are identified is going to die.

Only what is in our direct field of perception in any and every moment - nothing more. Which is to say that we always only Consciousness mysteriously associated with an Indivisible Sphere of boundless Energy or Light.

It is also more or less common knowledge that we do not merely see what is presumed to be external to us. Our seeing is in fact a subtle electronic apparition, developed in the brain and nervous system, and projected "out there". We have no direct connection to anything "out there". We are always having a vision. A vision of a seemingly solid world.

So too with our sense of bodily existence. We are experiencing an apparition, an electronic sense of being identified with a gross physical body. The actual position in which we are experiencing perceptions is an extremely subtle position. Every thing "out there" is an electronic apparition!

Mind is not merely in the brain. Mind is the circumstance of Consciousness in its association with objects of all kinds, including the body. Mind is universal, infinite in extent.

And Sells want to prattle on about "Israel" - whenever, and wherever that could possibly be.

Ozandy,
I’m not sure about your correlation of religion and society. Some of the darkest societies we’ve seen have been avowedly atheist – Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea .... And the enlightenment values of the West have their roots in Christianity.

Crabsy
You may be a bit soft on Peter. I think he IS a Christian exclusivist based on a) his view of Christianity as being an anti-religion (not just one religion among many) and b) the importance of revelation in his theology, which tends to suggest there is only one authentic source of knowledge of God.

(Peter, I apologise if I have misrepresented you here, or grossly over-simplified. Feel free to contradict me!)

Interesting dissertation, Ho Hum.

>>It is also more or less common knowledge that we do not merely see what is presumed to be external to us. Our seeing is in fact a subtle electronic apparition, developed in the brain and nervous system, and projected "out there". We have no direct connection to anything "out there". We are always having a vision.<<

Wow, that takes me back.

Reminds me of the old man in the shack, in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Here he is, talking to his cat:

"Pussy! Pussy, pussy! Coo-chee, coo-chee, coo-chee, coo-chee! Pussy want his fish? Nice piece of fish… pussy want it? Pussy not eat his fish, pussy get thin and waste away…

I think.

I imagine this is what will happen, but how can I tell? I think it’s better if I don’t get involved.

I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet, so who am I to judge?

Ahh, you’re eating it. Fish come from far away - or so I’m told - or so I imagine I am told. When the men come - or when in my mind the men come in their six black, shiny ships, do they come in your mind too?

What do you see pussy?

And when I hear their questions, all their many questions, do you hear questions? Perhaps you just think they’re singing songs to you. Perhaps they are singing songs to you and I just think they’re asking me questions.

Do you think they came today? …I do. There’s mud on the floor, cigarettes and whiskey on my table, fish in your plate, and a memory of them in my mind. And, look what else they’ve left me!: Crosswords… dictionaries, and a calculator.

I think I must be right in thinking they ask me questions. To come all that way and leave all these things just for the privilege of singing songs to you would be very strange behaviour - or so it seems to me.

Who can tell? Who can tell?"

RIP Douglas Adams.

Pericles. That adapted quote was taken from this essay on the Cosmic Mandala

http://www.healer-crystals.com/CosmicM1.html

The other bits of my posting were pastiches of other writings by the same author on the nature of Ultimate Reality. All of which is summarized in a book titled Reality Is All the God There Is published by Inner Traditions

“zombie carpenter”

“It's religious institutions that are the boil on the bum of progress.”

Comments from academics who were, or still are, employed at places such as universities that have anti-discrimination and anti-vilification policies, and those policies cover religions.

It shows the complete lack of interest their staff have regards anti-discrimination and anti-vilification.

No wonder many foreign students have left, unlikely to return.

Well, crabsy, this, for one: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/28/1051381900365.html

And this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7066564/Hallucinating-God-the-Cognitive-Neuropsychiatry-of-Religious-Belief-and-Experience

"The Christian view is that we are part of the good creation of God but have been alienated from Him. This is the theological content of the story of the Garden of Eden. ... If we take the creation narratives seriously,  we will know that our nature is made in the image of God.  Faith, then, promises a return ... we return to an original nature that has been created and seen to be good." 

But if we don't take the narratives seriously? To what do we return? The current narrative says we are advanced slime on a large round backwater rock. Is that the Hope of the nations? 

Peter, I think you've missed the point. You acknowledge what is there but are yet to grasp it. 

Human beings are demonstrably THERMODYNAMIC machines.
We input energy, use it to do work,output progeny and goods and services and discard low energy(high-Entropy) WASTES that we cannot use.

The trick is that this reality has weird and wonderful complications. Thermodynmaic systems are inherently QUANTUM-MECHANICAL(QM). That means:

They communicate by what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance",

they LASE in coherent powerful bursts(good OR bad) if energised in particular ways,

they obey Pauli-related exclusion-rules and react violently to enter specific separate states when OVERCROWDED,

their output is QUANTIZED depending on their energy input regime with in-between output states strictly avoided,

they emit electromagnetic energy(thoughts&actions) when their energy source is cut off and their current state decay to lower quantum levels

and a host of other impressive QM oddities.

The overriding key to this human QM THERMODYNAMICS is the slice of the ENERGY input regime (petrol and coal) per person.

If some one person or group could control say the electricity supply of a state, say NSW, in such a way that the buck stops at COMMERCIAL in CONFIDENCE and not with the Government of the day, THEN they are effectively GOD for all intents and purposes & it doesn't matter what is imprinted on our blank slates. They will have filled the god-hole & have control of all our thermodynamic levers. That means they control all the QM consequences & selectively create any kind of society the care to dream up and sequester.

The dangers are great but at the end of the day if your electricity is cut off long enough you simply won't exist, rending your once-full-slate to the unending ghostly boredom of QM delocalisation or DEATH.

The moral of this Physics is that human beings need to respect their ENERGY sources and expect a certain frugality within the reproductive cliques.

Giving energy sources to CEOs hiding behind 'Comm-in-Con' diplomacy and giving exorbitant paid parental leave to priveledged anglo-saxon ruling elite workers in an MultiCult society is NOT exactly the way to go about it.

I can tell you the consequences right now but I think y'all know!

briar rose:

We agree in part about the religious institutions.

a) << they don't continually reappraise and renew>> Generally so, although there is some effort that is not easily observed from outside. Such efforts are accelerating.

b) << they are ossified as a consequence>> Again largely so but, in view of the foregoing, not permanently so.

c) << the institutions don't bear the wisdom - the writings bear the wisdom, be they Christian or other faiths.>> Wisdom and spiritual healing is found not only in writings. In church-life, for instance, it is found also through such channels as oral discourse, traditional liturgy, music and the symbols to be found in the artworks and architecture. And the sense of being part of an institution that is the nexus between today's people and many generations of the distant past can facilitate development of a person’s spirituality.

Rhian:
<< You may be a bit soft on Peter.>> Well, I’ve just re-read the article slowly and pondered some passages. I’ll reserve judgement for now on the charge of Christian-exclusivism. If that is indeed his position I don’t think the article blatantly states it. Further consideration needed.

Clownfish: Thanks for those two links. I’ll follow them up.

Jon J says:

//WHAT!? The zombie carpenter whose family didn't have sex for two generations, who asked his friends to stick their fingers in the whole in his side, who ascended to heaven to the accompaniment of an earthquake and a zombie attack that somehow never made it into history; this is an ANTIDOTE to bizarre and irrational beliefs?//

Now Jon... that is religious vilification, plain and simple.

You could have simply argued like Pericles and others... in a more responsible, less overtly abusive and mocking manner.. but no... you chose to vilify. Certain people are ALREADY paying money to lawyers defend themselves for such statements .. I doubt you (Or David F or David Singer) would like to join them.

How about taking an 'argumentative' approach rather than just hurling out rubbish and hoping some of it will stick.

Christians may believe that humanity has a God shaped hole in our beings.. there is no need to sprinkle verbal cyanide in it.
All you have to do is disagree and deny and argue against... no biggy.

Rhian. True, Soviets were Atheist in name, however their ways were dogmatic and top down...probably more important than the specifics of their faith.
Christians believe a whole range of things from "God hates Fags" through to "God made me rich, proof I'm more worth than the poor" through to genuine understanding of Jesus message of love. Bush thought God told him to invade Iraq!
Belief in God is no guarantee of belief in Good.

Rhian, Thursday, 17 February 2011 3:22:28 PM

North Korea has a cult of religious personality centred on Kim Il Jong - Defectors have been quoted as saying that North Korean schools deify both father and son.

Russia specifically invoked religion in ww2 - Stalin re-opened churches after had a religious experience in a retreat - he had been a seminarian before being expelled. He believed in a God of nature throughout his life.

ozandy,
>>True, Soviets were Atheist in name, however their ways were dogmatic and top down...probably more important than the specifics of their faith. <<

True, Nazis were German in name, however their ways were dogmatic and top down...probably more important than the specifics of their faith.

(True, the Inquisitors were Christian in name, etc.)

The vast majority of Germans accept that the Nazis were genuinely German, which, of course, does not mean that one cannot be a genuine German while condemning the Nazi version of being German.

Why, on the other hand, are there so many atheists who cannot accept that Communist atheism was what it claimed to be, namely a kind of atheism. Indeed, "scientific atheism" was the name of one of the subjects where they taught us their ideology (the same as Nazis did not shy away from the word "German" when teaching theirs) without trying to rename this atheism into a kind of religion or anti-theism (although with hindsight I agree that the latter would be a better description of the Communist version of atheism).

There were atheists who persecuted those whose world-view they disagreed with; there are still many, who like to call these world-views "delusional" although hopefully they do not intend to persecute them, the way the Soviets did, if/when they gain power. This, naturally, does not imply that ALL atheist are like that.

There are many respectable world-views compatible with atheism, but I think their adherents would make their position more credible if they did not try to explain away the persecution and injustices committed in the name of atheism. We, Christians know that, since for many years we tried to explain away injustices and cruelties done in the name of Christianity.

Neither belief in a Reality, irreducible to the material world, nor belief in the reducibility of all Reality to the material world makes you good or bad per se.

McReal,
>>North Korea has a cult of religious personality centred on Kim Il Jong<<
and Hawking spoke of the "mind of God". Are therefore Hawking and Kim il Jong religious?

This article should have been entitled: Inane ideas and the god-shaped hole!

George.
There are no acts committed "in the name of" Atheism as that description only describes what some folk *do not* believe!
Sure there are evil acts done by atheists...but to assume there is only one brand of atheism is of course naive...not to mention disrespectful!
I do not deny that atheists are capable of evil...they are human after all. What I dislike is the assumption that religion somehow grants virtue when all the evidence points the other way!
Atheists are regularly attacked be religious folk on a assumption that Man cannot be good without fear, so they need a Great Lord to master them. Most atheists believe Good can be innate, and is worth following without fantasy rewards and punishments in an improbable afterlife.
When you see the world as it is, religion looks *very* silly...I guess some disrespect creeps both ways too!

"When you see the world as it is"...is a bit flippant and comes across as arrogant. I should say:
"When you study the world in detail with no preconceptions...when you build a body of knowledge based on facts and experiment, when you have this knowledge confirmed by engineering and real-world feats, and all the knowledge complements and forms a larger, most beautiful structure." In other words when one understands enough real world trades, skills and fields of knowledge, including history...then religions...pretty much all of them excepting a few, look very silly.

Briar Rose,

Thank you for your valuable metaphor: 'the bum of progress'. Its association with religion is most appropriate, given its backward-looking and conservative nature. On the other hand, given the desperate quest for certainty amongst religious people, it is always reassuring to know that we can rely on our bums, rest on our laurels as it were, that they are always there to provide support and stability.

Karl Popper probably wasn't the first philosopher to embrace uncertainty, it probably is inherent in Kant and Schopenhauers' writings, and in fact, the whole point of the Enlightenment may be the recognition - finally - of the unavoidability of uncertainty, that it has ALWAYS been with us and always will be. Hence the violent opposition to it from nationalists, Romantics and the churches in the nineteenth century and beyond, i.e. from both Left and Right.

Why do we crave certainty ? Even on the Left, I know many who embrace Marxism, even Maoism, with that same uncritical, religious fervour, that it has all the answers now and for all time, and that we don't need to ever have doubts or worries ever again: a sort of god has answered all our (sort of) prayers. Perhaps it's a natural reaction to events, to seek a short and sharp response that irons out the creases of life and gives us eternal peace.

But now we know that it can never be so.

Pity about reality :(

Joe

Ozanby,
>>There are no acts committed "in the name of" Atheism<<

Well, I cannot give you an exact quote, where the phrase "in the name of" was used, whether by my Communist teachers (referring to atheism) or Nazis (referring to the German nation) or the Church (referring to Christianity). But I can assure you that much of what we have been exposed to in the Communist countries in the fifties etc, was due to their rejection of religion, notably Chtistianity. They called this attitude atheism, sometimes scientific world-view. Maybe you have had a different experience with living in a totalitarian country whose ideology was dictated by what they themselves called atheism (plus by other things, of course).

Now I see I am repeating myself, because I think you did not read properly what I wrote. For instance, I never claimed that

>> there was only one brand of atheism<< ,
I actually wrote exactly the opposite.

>> What I dislike is the assumption that religion somehow grants virtue <<
I never claimed that either, read my last sentence in that post.

>>When you see the world as it is, religion looks *very* silly...I guess some disrespect creeps both ways too!?<<
Yes, here we genuinely disagree in that though not sharing your opinions about (the cultural phenomenon of) religion I would not call them "very silly" or speak of "creepig disrespect".

As I said before, there are not only good and bad people among atheist as well as theists, there are also many silly people in both the camps. Believe me, I have known many such people irrespective of what they believed or did not believe about reality. Therefore I would be very careful with such sweeping statements.

George, I think it is a mistake to think that atheists have a 'camp' that they can be said to be included in.

I know many that prefer to think of themselves as individuals running wild and free on the boundless plains of intellectual thought. Which is why some of them object to even having an 'atheists society', as they believe it is an anathema to them and does not reflect their views at all, and that when some atheists band together to storm the citadels, they all become a target.

Religions of course thrive on citadels and camps, in fact they are defined by them and cannot understand anything else.

Rhian,

If you’re not sure about the correlation ozandy speaks of, then you need only utilize Google to come up with a lot of studies on this...

http://www.morgantownatheists.com/797/a-chart-of-religiousness-iq-morality-and-more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Of course, correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation (for example, the correlation with religiosity and wealth could be just because religions tend to prey on people who are down on their luck); these statistics aren’t proof that religion has a negative affect on societal health nor does it mean that religious societies are necessarily going to end-up a certain way.

But they do, however, disprove the claims of these Christians who run around complaining that everything wrong in our society has become that way because we’re abandoning god and that everything will be okay if we just accept their particular version of god.

As for the communist societies of the 20th century, these were anti-religious societies. They essentially enforced an establishment of atheism by outlawing religion, but they weren’t secular societies and they weren’t truly atheist societies either because there’s nothing within atheism to support what they were doing.

George,

I’m not sure you understand what exactly atheists object to and why.

<<The vast majority of Germans accept that the Nazis were genuinely German, which, of course, does not mean that one cannot be a genuine German while condemning the Nazi version of being German.>>

The difference being, of course, that when theists raise the topic of communism and atheism, they’re not just mentioning inconsequential correlation like the one you show in your analogy, they’re usually implying that the absence of religion leads to communism. You never see any one claim that being German leads to Nazism.

<<Why, on the other hand, are there so many atheists who cannot accept that Communist atheism was what it claimed to be, namely a kind of atheism.>>

See above.

I’m quite comfortable with what you’ve said about the ‘Scientific Atheism’ class and if you insist that the Soviets did what they did in the name of atheism, then I’ll take your word for it - for now.

Why?

Continued...

...Continued

Because atheism is not a philosophy, it is not a belief system, it is not a principal and it is not a worldview. It is either the complete absence of a religious belief or it is the rejection of a claim as unsupported by evidence.

That being said...

<<There are many respectable world-views compatible with atheism, but I think their adherents would make their position more credible if they did not try to explain away the persecution and injustices committed in the name of atheism.>>

There is no need for atheists to explain away anything as there is nothing within atheism to support what the soviets did any way. The only people I could imagine would feel the need to explain anything away would be modern day communists since they share a doctrine with the Soviets.

‘Strong’ atheism is the rejection of a claim as unsupported by evidence.

That being said, if you are implying that atheists need to take some sort of ownership for what was “committed in the name of atheism”, then you are essentially saying that one cannot choose to reject theism unless they carry with them the legacy of communism; in which case you would not only be giving theistic claims an unprecedented validity that they have not yet earned, but a validity that no other claim possibly ever could earn.

<<We, Christians know that, since for many years we tried to explain away injustices and cruelties done in the name of Christianity.>>

Yes, but you at least share a doctrine with those Christians who committed the injustices.

I’ll leave you now with a quote from Sam Harris:

“The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship ... There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

“The fact that the brain comes pre wired with certain innate software is as a result of evolution. Any creature that has to learn everything is doomed. However, the learning ability is to ensure that man is infinitely adaptable.” (Shadow Minister)

Close I would think.

And can be combined with this statement from the article

“Now that we know something about the neurological structures that are essential to our experiencing we have to conclude that the mind is not a clean slate at all but that it is prepared at birth for particular kinds of experience.”

Which leads to the question “Is there a God gene”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html

Belief in a God has been common to nearly every culture right throughout history, and it does not lead to the probability that humans are born with a desire to believe in a God, and that desire is genetically based.

Although it is now very trendy to vilify religions, and academics may very well receive brownie points from their universities for denigrating and vilifying religions and showing nothing but bigotry, prejudice and disdain to anyone religious , there is a very great probability that humans are genetically predisposed to seek or believe in a God.

Vanna,

I think that academics nowadays would certainly get brownie points from their universities if they could uncritically proclaim that Islam is 100 % a religion of sweetness and light and, just as fifty years ago there was no such thing as the Mafia, there is nowadays no such thing as al Qa'ida (it's all an American lie), and the Muslim Brotherhood is a selfless community organisation dedicated to equality and peace.

A. J. Phillips,

Thank you a thousand times for that magnificent quote:

“The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship ... There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

Joe

Loudmouth,
Nothing in life is 100% "sweetness and light", but the tendency now is to denigrate all religions.

Meanhwhile, it is more than likely that humans are genetically predisposed to worship a God or a set of Gods.

Unfortunately for many university academics, they are no longer considered godlike.

I think that Santa has a lot to answer for.

I think that when children find out there is no Santa that their disappointment is so great that they willingly turn to the concept of God, the one promoted by all manner of mischievous men who know a sucker when they see one.

The amazing thing is that there have been 40 plus comments on this thread and they all talk about nothing because god does not exist. It is a Santa-replacement for adults who can't quite grow up!

God-hole, paah! It's a nonsense as is life after death and heaven and hell.

Wake up and smell the roses!

DavidG,

No not really about nothing.

The "parent hole", to use analogous terminology, is quite real, with excellent biological reasons for existing and a clear basis for variation and selection, hence evolutionarily sound.

Religions co-opt this real thing and pervert it something different, analogous to the way in which a healthy and beneficial desire for rich food in hunter-gatherers is subverted by the false promise of sugar-rich confections in industrialised times.

Religion promises nothing that is not a gross exaggeration of parental care, and knows it. The principal way of describing "god"'s concern is purely through reference to that of real parents, but of course the religious "father" is bigger and better.

Sells has not acknowledged this biological basis despite the terminology infesting religious language, a severe failing given that he is aware of such matters. Sells has not provided any sound reason why it may be insufficient. Given the bizarre psychological manipulations many religions use, I believe Sells cannot justify *any* component of "religious experience" that is definitively incapable of being mimicked through intense delusions encouraged by lifelong indoctrination and social pressures all based on an "innate" desire to bond with parents.

Sells has posited a "proclivity" without giving any reason why it *in fact* represents anything more than a perversion of natural yearning for parental care, guidance or even self-discovery. He claims it is *special*, effectively numinous or somesuch, and acts as if positing the possibility makes it so. Even Sells is aware that Aristotle got much more tangible things wrong, and is hardly a guide on this one.

Sells is trained as a scientist, it seems bizarre that his "faith" requires such word games. It is insulting to his competance and ours to posit one developmental pre-priming (language) while ignoring the one most prominently applicable to religion (parent bonding).

One might get away with that in church publications, but not in any effort to arrive at genuine understnding.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter:
Thank you for your last post -- a very clear presentation of your position. Nevertheless my own view hasn’t changed since our last exchange: adopting God as a parent-substitute is what some Christians do, but some others don’t. (I can’t say whether it’s the same in other religions because I don’t know them well enough.)

But your last post makes it clear that you’re using evolutionary theory as the basis for all your reasoning. I suggest that evolutionary principles are very useful in dealing with many phenomena in human life, but not with all. There is a human drive that aims beyond survival.

Crabsy,

It is insufficient for you to make the assertion that there is something more than parent substitution. You may have been indoctrinated to think so, but that does make it so. Having already been emotionally snared, it is possible to devote a *lot* of effort to imagining things not real.

The onus is upon you (or Sells) to show that there is *no way* that co-option of the mundane can explain religious experience. Further, to demonstrate why there is something so extraordinarily special about it that (a) religion is definitely the answer and (b) "christianity" can claim to be the sole fullfillment in the face of others claiming likewise about other religions.

I don't think you'll have much luck there.

A "human drive beyond survival", which I might happily stipulate later, is not useful if it is subverted and applied to things that have no basis, like pseudo-needs confected by people with a vested interest in supplying pseudo-fullfillments.

Rusty.

Rusty Catheter:

Sorry, your last post comes nowhere near the previous one in clarity.

This charge is often used as a fall-back by those who want to discredit religious or spiritual notions.
<< You may have been indoctrinated to think so, but that does make it so. >>
[I assume you meant “does not”?]
1. How could you know if I had been “indoctrinated?
2. What would “make it so”?

And then we come to this:
<<... it is possible to devote a *lot* of effort to imagining things not real.>>
Another snipe quite common among those who proclaim the scientific approach as the only valid way to explore reality. Imagination, next to dreams, is possibly the most effective route to psycho-spiritual reality. We’ve all got it, but many simply refuse to use it and call those who do "deluded".

And here you want to dictate the rules as well as compete:
<< The onus is upon you (or Sells) to show that there is *no way* that co-option of the mundane can explain religious experience.>>
Why? I guess it’s because you refuse to accept that logical empiricism is inadequate for both gaining the experience and learning from it. So if someone doesn’t justify a statement in logical-empirical terms you rule them out of order.

Then you attempt to increase the onus:
<< to demonstrate why there is something so extraordinarily special about it that (a) religion is definitely the answer and (b) "christianity" can claim to be the sole fullfillment in the face of others claiming likewise about other religions.>>
1. Your demand (a) is unclear. What does “it” refer to?
2. Demand (b) I reject out of hand. I have never claimed that “Christianity” is the only way, and I don’t think it is.

And your last paragraph? It’s built from multiple ambiguities, so I can’t comment.

Bugsy,
OK, so replace "camps" with "groups" in my last paragraph, if that is your problem. Otherwise I agree with what you wrote, nothing in my post contradicts it.

AJ Philips,
Here we go again. In my posts to Ozanby I did not express any opinion about "what exactly atheists object to and why". You apparently did not understand what I wanted to say with my analogy, fair enough. One cannot explain an analogy the same as one cannot explain a joke: you either get or don't get it.

In my rhetorical question "Why … are there so many atheists who cannot accept that Communist atheism was what it claimed to be, namely a kind of atheism" I used "MANY atheists" not "ALL atheists". However, you demonstrated that you were apparently one of them: "logically" (as much as I dislike the use of this term in debates, where it is easily abused) to accept that "Communist atheism is a kind of atheism" is not different from accepting that "green apples are one kind of apples". I made it clear that I was referring to atheism as the Communists (and those whom they persecuted) understood it, and not as e.g. you might understand the term today.

As for Sam Harris, I do not know what personal experience he had with Communist totalitarianism to make that claim (as you know I had the bad fortune of experiencing it for 20 years), but by quoting him you provided a good illustration of what I meant by "explaining away" the injustices - to put it mildly - of Communist atheism, e.g. by renaming it.

>>There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable<<
I cannot think of anybody - theist or atheist - who would want to contradict this, although I do not see what it has to do with the topic of my post.

Also the rest of your post - containing parts I agree with, parts I have reservations about - is irrelevant to what I was stating.

George,

I’m not sure why you’re bothering to point out the fact that you said “many” and not “all”, but I think you’re attributing more to atheism than what is reasonable; presumably to pin more to atheists than you possibly can.

I don’t think there are any atheists who cannot accept that Communist atheism was a kind of atheism and to demonstrate why, let’s re-word your question to say what it literally says:

“Why are there so many atheists who cannot accept that Communist disbelief was what it claimed to be, namely a kind of disbelief?”

I don’t see anything wrong with that.

But for the sake of your argument, you’d probably prefer that I deal with strong form of atheism and I’m willing to do that because I don’t think it makes any difference.

So with that in mind, let’s take another look at the question:

“Why are there so many atheists who cannot accept that the Communists’ rejection of theistic claims was what it claimed to be, namely a kind of rejection of theistic claims?”

Do you see what I’m getting at here?

You appear to be attributing too much to atheism, because I don’t know of anyone what would object to what you said. You're attacking a strawman.

This all goes back to what I was saying about not being too phased about what the Soviets did or what they claimed to be doing what they did in the name of, because I don’t share a doctrine, philosophy or worldview with them.

I have blonde hair; so if a blonde haired dictator were to start killing people with hair that was any other colour, would that mean I should dye my hair or be ashamed of my hair colour (something that, like my disbelief, I cannot help) or take some sort of ownership over what this dictator has done just because of this?

No.

And the same goes for atheism.

This all goes back to what I was saying the validity (or lack thereof) of religious belief.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...you demonstrated that you were apparently one of [the many atheists who cannot accept that Communist atheism was a kind of atheism]...>>

Really? How?

<<...to accept that "Communist atheism is a kind of atheism" is not different from accepting that "green apples are one kind of apples".>>

I couldn’t agree more!

<<I made it clear that I was referring to atheism as the Communists (and those whom they persecuted) understood it, and not as e.g. you might understand the term today.>>

My understanding of atheism is probably not that much different to the Communists’ understanding of atheism either.

If this is you’re only point then, not only are we wasting our time, but it appears that you’ve changed your tune ever-so-slightly since the last time we had this discussion. On other occasions, you seemed to want to - very subtly and indirectly, of course - pin communism on atheism.

In fact, I would have been convinced that you’d abandoned this angle-of-attack entirely had it not been for this...

<<As for Sam Harris, I do not know what personal experience he had with Communist totalitarianism to make that claim (as you know I had the bad fortune of experiencing it for 20 years), but by quoting him you provided a good illustration of what I meant by "explaining away" the injustices - to put it mildly - of Communist atheism, e.g. by renaming it.>>

Renaming it to what exactly?

Firstly, not only is a personal experience with Communist atheism not necessary, but having such an experience could hinder one’s ability to view these things rationally and objectively.

Secondly, Sam Harris did not “explain away” anything. What he did was put some perspective to this whole issue by pointing out that the problem with the Communist regimes was that they were extremely dogmatic and that dogmatism is a characteristic of religion - not atheism - and I would challenge you to point out one single reason as to why he was wrong, or why what he says is beside the point, rather than simply accusing him of explaining something away.

A J Philips,

As I understand it, Buddhism has no gods and yet is regarded as a religion.

So, perhaps we can say quite accurately, Communist atheism was/is a kind of theism ? A choice between alternative religions ?

'Our religion is better than your religion.'

'Don't question the principles of our religion, or of its founding fathers and their self-chosen heirs, or it's off to the gulags !'

Just trying to make a contribution .....

Joe

AJ Philips,
In spite of my earlier experience I reacted to your post. And I could also react to your latest post line-by-line, but in most of the cases I would only have to repeat myself.

Those who understood what I wanted to say about the Communist system do not need more explanation, whether or not they think that my experience with this System hinders my ability "to view these things rationally and objectively" as well as my ability to know what was the OFFICIAL name they gave their teaching about what THEY - not Harris - understood by religion and (belief in) God.

And those who did not understand are welcome to share your point of view if they can understand it (as I can't) and feel good about it, but I do not see any point in participating again in this ping-pong (the way e.g. mjpb did recently in the thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814, before he apparently learned his lesson in the futility of such exercise).

So you are right when you speak about "wasting our time" if I continued with this game.

Joe,

That’s an interesting point. I’d never thought about it that way. If we consider Buddhism a religion, then why not Communism?

It’s dogmatic; it has a doctrine; it requires a dictatorship - that prohibits the questioning of its doctrine - to implement it on a large scale; it makes promises that it can’t keep and its loyal adherents are impervious to reason and absolutely will not abandon it or even question it, despite overwhelming evidence that something’s wrong with it.

I think you’re on to something there.

George,

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you’re not able to see the situation rationally because you lived it. I was more pointing out the fact that Sam Harris’s lack of experience in living in a Communist society doesn’t necessarily mean that what he said was any less true and nor does it necessarily bring the credibility of his statement into question; and that to any extent that it might have, experiencing it could too.

<<Those who understood what I wanted to say about the Communist system do not need more explanation ... as well as my ability to know what was the OFFICIAL name they gave their teaching about what THEY - not Harris - understood by religion and (belief in) God.>>

Yes, but that’s not all you said.

In your rhetorical question you displayed a misunderstanding of what it is that atheists get annoyed about when theists start this whole, “Well, we tried atheism and look how that turned out”, shtick and this is predominantly what I’ve been addressing, so please don’t go down this, “You just don’t [have the ability to] understand me”, road again.

In regards to that other thread, mjpb has indicated to me that he has every intention of getting back to me once he’s sorted his computer problems out, but thanks for the subtle implication that discussing anything with me is a waste of time.

Continued...

...Continued

I note too that you always use the words “react to” instead of “respond to” when referring to your posts to me, as if to imply that nothing I say is worth responding to and I only ever provoke reactions.

Pleasant stuff.

You use the term “ping-pong” as if to imply that discussions with me never go anywhere or that they only ever go in circles, never accomplishing anything, when on the contrary, mjpb and I have actually established quite a bit on that other thread. The most recent developments being that the fine tuning argument for god doesn’t work and that it is the theist who has the burden of proof whether one views the burden of proof from a ‘legal’ perspective or a ‘philosophic’ perspective.

Now if you’ll excuse me, you’re tone is getting a little too nasty for me to want to continue here.

AJ Philips,
>>Now if you’ll excuse me, you’re tone is getting a little too nasty for me to want to continue here.<<
ditto, and I am glad we can agree on this.

Crabsy,

I believe I was sufficiently clear.

Our society and others even more so, is pervaded by ideas of a magical "other" reality accessible by devotions, meditation, fasting, psychoactives, "prayer", architecture, etc. It takes noticeable effort for most to discount this sufficiently to stop looking for things that are not there.
It is not *my* desire to make these spurious things so, *nor* to encourage the delusion. Please *find* something beyond mere wordy assertion that makes consideration worthwhile.

The "scientific approach" has established bona fides as a rational approach. Imagination constrained by meaningful inputs is fruitful. Fanciful whimsy is not.

It would certainly bolster the case if you (or Sells) *could* show that the alleged religious experience is not generated by cooption (or perverted exaggeration) of the mundane. It is a matter of record that apparantly sincere people can be sufficiently well taken in by cheap imitations as to kill their own children and themselves, proclaiming religious ecstasy throughout. I think you *will* have a hard time finding examples of emotional distortion that *cannot* be generated by mundane inputs. I think Sell's attempt to side step that was weak. Criticising the applicability of the scientific method is more so.

The "it" of (a) is the topic of the whole thread, the "proclivity" or "numinous yearning" or whatever.

The (b) is clearly Sell's major thrust towards the end of his article, consistent with his previous articles in which concern about other religions like paganism and their influence and/or market share.

Your proposed "drive beyond survival" *sounds* good. Just because you can grammatically frame the thought does not give it validity. I could say the same of "dragons".

If the "last paragraph" you refer to is too ambiguous, then you need to consider that the ambiguity of the "god hole" is the problem. You (and Sells) have no way of describing the thing well enough to talk about it meaningfully *let alone* for Sells to present his particular brand of snake-oil as the dinky-di answer.

I am reminded of schoolboys who have been sold bogus "weed": "can you feel it yet?"

Rusty

G'day Rusty:

You persist in demanding evidence that “religious” (I would say spiritual) experience is real.
<< Just because you can grammatically frame the thought does not give it validity.>>
Of course it doesn’t and who would have thought otherwise! Nor do I expect you to be persuaded to agree with me just because I did frame it. I think the experience itself, not the words written about it by someone else, is an essential basis for adopting a spiritual viewpoint.

I should also point out that Peter Sellick can speak for his article if he so wishes. I commented that it was worth thinking about, but did not suggest in any way that I agreed with it. Yet you continually bracket my viewpoint with his, as if they were one.

Well, I think I have to draw the following conclusions:
1 You will not consider the possibility that any aspect of reality can be detected or dealt with through any cognitive processes than logic and empirical observation – i.e. science.
2 You will not be swayed from the conviction that only "deluded” people or “snake-oil” vendors would suggest that some aspects of reality can only be apprehended through non-scientific means.
3 In discussion you assume the authority to dictate the rules of admissibility – i.e. that someone who presents a viewpoint based on non-scientific experience or thought is out of order and should therefore not post or accept your sneering comments (“delusion”, “schoolboys who have been sold bogus weed”, “fanciful whimsy” etc.).

So there I think we should leave it, Rusty. It seems any further discussion between us – at least on this thread – will be a waste of our time.

It rather strikes me Atheism is the truly arrogant position to adopt.

1. Knowledge is metaphorical – over time everything ‘scientifically’ proven is disproven or replaced and ultimately we know by reference to other things.

2. Knowing how something happens does not tell us why they happened, all science ends up at axioms which by nature can be supported by showing consistency but not proven.

3. Holding oneself to be the arbiter of truth (if it isn’t proven to me then it is wrong) makes one out to be God – I am the determiner of truth.

4. Our capacity to know is being seriously eroded – as estimated 4 exabytes (10^19) of unique information were generated in 2008 which equals unique information generated in previous history – who can even attempt a passing understanding of human knowledge? Or has the store of human knowledge become a God in itself and one that is increasingly beyond us.

Perhaps the quality required in these debates is humility.

Agnosticism is understandable, ‘I doubt for certain reasons’. Atheism is an absurdity given the poor durability of human knowledge and the requirements for omniscience in order to claim I’ve looked everywhere and know all things – by use of a recursive only God can disprove God!

Crabsy,

Allowing for your sullen tone, yes, I think you have grasped my position.

Sells' view appears to me to be a needless refinement of the more general gase you assert.

I reject both on grounds that routine means of investigation have been avoided by fiat. This is a perfectly routine and reasonable position. I don't investigate every report of fairies in my garden, but I would regard as ingenuine someone who, professing a desire to truly understand fairies, then ignored any helpful suggestions about how to go about determining whether there really are any such, or whether all sightings are *trivially* explained by mundane means.

*you* propose such a proclivity, desire beyond survival etc. Fine. Get on with it.

I perceive a parallel in which crank "sceptics" of, say, the expanding universe, or evolution complain that educated and working scientists, having studied hard, worked for their positions, kept themselves abreast of their fields and made defensible contributions thereto, somehow *must* for "fairness" discard work they know of their own knowledge and experience to be worthwhile to "consider the alternatives". Usually "alternatives" long debunked to the certain knowledge of the scientist. All just to satisfy the egos of "objectors" unwilling to make the same type of investment in their own position.

Nice try, but the onus is definitely on you to find by "searching" rather than "defining by fiat" a religious experience not explainable by ordinary manipulations of mundane emotions or psychological states.

Sells has simply tried to make even more soup from this very little oyster.

Anytime the "sneering comments" become unacceptable, just present the reason why one circumstance of self delusion "yes, yes, I think it's coming on now" differs from another.

Rusty

Cronus wrote:
<<It rather strikes me Atheism is the truly arrogant position to adopt.

1. Knowledge is metaphorical – over time everything ‘scientifically’ proven is disproven or replaced and ultimately we know by reference to other things.

2. Knowing how something happens does not tell us why they happened, all science ends up at axioms which by nature can be supported by showing consistency but not proven.

3. Holding oneself to be the arbiter of truth (if it isn’t proven to me then it is wrong) makes one out to be God – I am the determiner of truth.

4. Our capacity to know is being seriously eroded – as estimated 4 exabytes (10^19) of unique information were generated in 2008 which equals unique information generated in previous history – who can even attempt a passing understanding of human knowledge? Or has the store of human knowledge become a God in itself and one that is increasingly beyond us.

Perhaps the quality required in these debates is humility.

Agnosticism is understandable, ‘I doubt for certain reasons’. Atheism is an absurdity given the poor durability of human knowledge and the requirements for omniscience in order to claim I’ve looked everywhere and know all things – by use of a recursive only God can disprove God!Posted by Cronus, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 9:23:10 AM>>

Cronus, this is brilliant. Not just humility is required. One also requires a sincere intention to get at the truth which in turn requires a preparedness to be honest with oneself.

Well of course it does, Cronos.

>>It rather strikes me Atheism is the truly arrogant position to adopt<<

Similarly, you consider attributing the creation of universe and all that is in it to a supreme being, to be the essence of humility.

And your absolute certainty that this is the case carries with it, you believe, not a trace of the arrogance you attribute to atheists. (No need for the capital "A", by the way. It is simply an abstract noun)

OK, let's see what you have come up with.

>>1.Knowledge is metaphorical – over time everything ‘scientifically’ proven is disproven or replaced and ultimately we know by reference to other things<<

Hmmm. I would have thought that this is an essentially humble stance.

It accepts that we are far too insignificant, a teensy speck among the billions of galaxies, to be able to fully understand what happened when the universe was formed. And so we continue to learn. Something new every day.

>>2.Knowing how something happens does not tell us why they happened<<

Absolutely true. Atheists aren't arrogant enough to presume that we do know why, either. We leave that to religionists.

>>3.Holding oneself to be the arbiter of truth (if it isn’t proven to me then it is wrong) makes one out to be God – I am the determiner of truth.<<

That's a stretch. Most people I know are happy to accept that we don't know, and continue to remain open to new research, theories and findings. We do however favour some theories over others, though, which pretty well puts us on a par with religionists.

>>4.who can even attempt a passing understanding of human knowledge?<<

Certainly not atheists.

In fact, let's recap the religionist's view.

- you guys don't accept that there is still a whole heap more to learn

- you presume to know "why"

- you consider yourselves to have discovered the "truth"

- and you tell us that you know everything there is to know: God did it

Sorry - who was it you were describing as arrogant?