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!