Why We Need Good Religion...

[swarm]

Buddhism, Taoism etc. are all climbing the same mountain but from different cultural perspectives.

That is the claim, but having done the xtian and Buddhist thing I find the dissimilarities are at least as telling as the similarities.

Jewish, Sufi and Christian mystics have very similar practices and values to the Oriental traditions e.g. 'Nirvana' and the 'Kingdom of Heaven' are not very different.

I don't think that is supportable in general. Nirvana and heaven in particular are very divergent concepts as they are usually represented. Of course there is a lot of vagueness and variation on both sides there. For example if you go through enough esoterica on either side there is some overlap, like "the cloud of unknowing" or "pureland," but I feel this is attributable more to similarities in humanity than any "goal" and it is debatable if the more extreme esoterica like the cloud of unknowing are really still "christian."

Likewise many muslims eminently deny that sufism is actually still islam, ditto for jews and the kaballa. If we stick with the generally accepted core beliefs, I would definitely disagree with your claim. If we are discussing esoterica then I feel we need to be far more specific.

The "Via Negativa" for instance in Christian mysticism is very like the practice of 'Emptiness' in traditional Mahayana Buddhism, and also like the 'Void' of Taoism.

Not really. For those who've never encountered it "Via Negativa" is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.
more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology

So god is not existent. God is non rational. God is not a sandwich. God is not here.

Sunyata in buddhism isn't a means of describing something else, it is what is being described/realized as the inherent quality of all compounded reality.

[Sunyata] is a characteristic of phenomena arising from the fact (as observed and taught by the Buddha) that the impermanent nature of form means that nothing possesses essential, enduring identity (see anattā). In the Buddha's spiritual teaching, insight into the emptiness of phenomena (Pali: suññatānupassanā) is an aspect of the cultivation of insight (vipassanā-bhāvanā) that leads to wisdom and inner peace.
more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā

In the Dao de jing, the void has two levels of functional and existential meaning. Concretely, it is the interstice that allows movement, the receptive hollow in a vessel (sec. 11). As such it also has a cosmic significance: it is the necessary void space that is both the matrix of the world and the place from which the Original Pneuma (*yuanqi) can spring forth and circulate. On the human level, the void is mental and affective emptiness, the absence of prejudices and partialities dictated by the desire or will to attain a goal.
more: http://www.stanford.edu/~pregadio/eot/eot_daode_jing.html

As you hopefully can see, the same word has very different meanings here.

However, the degree of convergence is startling!

Did you know all over the world people drink water!!! Amazing coincidence or proof that alien mind control is real???

It is also evidence of an underlying reality that is being described.

That underlying reality being that humans aren't really that different from each other.

I believe we have an afterlife only because consciousness (soul) is ubiquitous in Nature.

You realize that consciousness is actually quite rare, happening only in organisms with complex neural nets, consciousness is consciousness and not "soul," and being ubiquitous doesn't mean something has duration after it is lost??? Also, that there is consciousness after my consciousness is lost doesn't mean that my consciousness continues.

It all adds up.

I suggest buying a calculator quick!

 

[swarm]

If the mind is physical, what is a thought made of SG?

Thought is made up of patterns of brain activity just like the mona lisa is a pattern of pigments.

Mind is NOT physical!

Neither is it not physical. It is a pattern. A particular organization which neurons enter into and maintain.

 

[baftan]

As we get more technologically powerful, the world we create for ourselves, depends on how we see ourselves and our mutual relationship with each other and with Nature. That is the urgent reason why we need to reconnect – and co-operate to redefine a rational religion that embraces everyone and everthing in diverse unity. That is the job of religion.

Problematic...

First of all, "the world we create for ourselves depends on how we see ourselves and our mutual relationship with each other and nature" has nothing to do with advanced level of technology. Humans were doing this "before" technology was so advanced, as you mentioned:

Belief in God or gods is a primitive attempt to engage in just such a relationship with Nature or with those things in the world around us. Many cultures worship the earth as a mother goddess, the people belong to the land, which feeds them.

Secondly, religion, due to its definition and characteristics, aims to unite people around irrational things. So you can not establish any "rational religion"; if you could, this would not be called as religion. It can be called ideology, programme, social agreement, this or that, anything but religion. Religion is partly about social harmony and unification; and it is partly about personal imagination on unclear phenomenons (death, will power, creation, etc.)

I sense your good intention, and I am sorry that I could not make a positive contribution.

 

[Cris]

Diog,

Devotion to a personal God (as the totality of everything), is like Bhakti yoga in Hinduism. Pure-Land Buddhists practice devotion to the Amida Buddha (Buddha of Compassion), and Taoism has the 'Tao', 'Way' or 'Principle' which is very like the Hebrew God as the mysterious unnamable Source of all things, and can be allied to Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life".

These traditions arose from very different cultures. However, the degree of convergence is startling! It is also evidence of an underlying reality that is being described.

While the observation is dubious your conclusion is simply unfounded. The only underlying reality is that the human mind seeks answers and will tend to speculate more than take the more painful route of reasoned investigation. The numerous and vastly varied forms of religion and the nearly 3000 different gods man has imagined give ample testimony that there is no underlying truth since most of these religious ideas contradict each other. Even within the same religions there are major disagreements, just look at the two major factions within Islam, or the protestant and catholic versions of Christianity.

As for a soul and an afterlife, I believe we have an afterlife only because consciousness (soul) is ubiquitous in Nature. I and you are each just one transitory node of the same consciousness (soul) that experiences the world first hand in ALL beings. Our fate is therefore reincarnation. It all adds up.

Nice idea if you could show how consciousness could exist without a physical brain.

 

[Cris]

Diog,

If the mind is physical, what is a thought made of SG?

The suggestion is that it is composed of physical neural networks.

How much mass has the number 3?

The number 3 isn’t a physical entity, it is a thought, and that is composed of physical neural networks.

How big is the taste of strawberries?

One would measure a physical phenomenon by an appropriate metric. Taste is a physical phenomenon like all the senses. In this case a neural reaction to chemical stimuli resulting in additional thoughts, i.e. another physical phenomenon.

How much energy in joules has Darwin's theory of evolution? Reductio ad absurdum?

The theory is held as a set of thoughts and concepts in a human brain that uses physical neural networks.

Etc, etc.

I.e. everything is phsyical.

What you mean is that the brain and mind are closely correlated. However, they are not the same. Mind is NOT physical!

Quite the opposite. The mind is entirely physical. The mind and brain are essentially one and the same thing. One is the medium and the other is the result.

For example, take a pile of matchsticks. With these one could construct patterns that represent the letters of the alphabet. We have no difficulty recognizing the letters, but are the letters physical or are just the matchsticks physical? They are both physical. The same relationship exists between the brain and the mind.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Perhaps you misunderstand what is meant by referring to something as physical...

Do you consider a pattern as "physical".
If not - what is a pattern?

If yes - what is the difference between "mind" and a pattern?

A pattern is only physical if it is made out of something physical Sarkus, like a pattern of seeds in a sunflower. If I only imagine a pattern of seeds, it is NOT physical. It has no mass, or energy, or causal effect on the universe (other than through my agency). It only becomes physical if I create something physical to resemble it e.g. paint it, or photograph it.

Actually, your idea that a pattern in itself is physical, is symptomatic of the whole "God" debate. Some people perceive it, others do not, and will keep asking "what evidence do you have that it exists?". It's like asking to identify the chemical composition of beauty in a painting? Only the paint has chemistry.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

You are hinting at something, but missed the mark. What happened around the same time in cultures all around the world was a kind of awakening, a revolution in thinking about humanity as it relates to the universe. In the mid-east it was more about a devine being, but it did stress the individual. In the far east, the focus was about the illusion of ego and the unity of all things. Tao is very different from the concept of God. It is passive and non-personal. It makes no particular supernatural claims but emphasizes nature.

The Tao is very like the 'One' of Neo-Platonism that was a huge influence St. Augustine and has been in Christianity generally. The Jewish God of the OT is portrayed as always intervening, and there are theological differences within e.g. Christianity on that issue. For me, God is found within the unfolding of events - which is very much in line with the Tao. This is a perfect description of God in the Tao Te Ching.

The Tao is called the Great Mother: empty yet inexhaustible, it gives birth to infinite worlds. It is always present within you. You can use it any way you want. The Tao is infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can never die. Why is it infinite? It has no desires for itself; thus it is present for all beings.

Compare the above with this....

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Very different cultures, but describing something similar?

I think the pure land school is ridiculous, as are all the other Buddhist cultish sects where Buddha himself is worshipped. They completely missed the point.

Sounds like you don't like any form of personification SG! Fair enough - horses for courses! Some people find giving God a face helps them in relating with what is infinite, eternal and incomprehensible...

God-based religions view man as separate from nature, and nature as just a stepping stone to a "higher" reality.

My whole thesis above is that religion i.e. "re-connection" to nature and others is essential. God is the "All" of nature (and more) of which we are transitory manifestations. Unfortunately, the Cartesian divide effects all areas of our culture, not least science, which presumes a mechanistic view of nature. Think of all the animals we justify vivisecting to satisfy our scientific curiosity - then come and tell me that science is at all sympathetic to nature!

We have an afterlife because the body is immortal, life is immortal. Thought-forms are passed on through culture, no thoughts are your own, and no thought exist independently of the body.

You sound like Patanjali now! I 95% agree with you, but would add that we are more than our thoughts. We are conscious entities, that disclose the world. Our bodies and identities are transitory and die, but consciousness is common to all sentient beings and is immortal.

When I say physical, I don't just mean matter, but also energy. Thought is a process, an electrochemical reaction to stimuli- internal and external. The mind shows no qualities that are not physical. If I gave you a lobotomy, your personality would no longer exist, so much for the soul.

The mind shows no qualities that ARE physical! No mass, no energy, no dimensions etc.... The 'mind' is not the same as the 'brain', which does have mass, energy, dimensions etc.

You may effect my mind through altering my brain, and vica-versa but a thought or sensation does NOT have any physical qualities. It's the "hard" problem of the mind's relationship to matter.

Matter isn't mental, because we can alter matter and cross check the perception of it across multiple people. The observation of matter is statistically reliable.

Last night I was standing next to Dawkins, Dennett, a noodly Spaghetti Monster, and you SG, and we all saw an Invisible Pink Unicorn! We spray painted it blue, and everyone agreed it looked different - I cross checked with everyone - it was real, they said they were real, I was certainly real! That makes it statistically reliable I concluded. Then the alarm went off... :bawl:

Does that qualify as evidence?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Oh damn, I gota go - maybe respond to the others later

 

[swarm]

A pattern is only physical if it is made out of something physical Sarkus

Everything that makes a pattern is made from the interaction of matter, energy and forces.

If I only imagine a pattern of seeds, it is NOT physical.

It is just as physical as the sunflower seeds and with the current imagining technology we can look inside your head and take a picture of the pattern and compare it with other brain patterns and see the difference.

We are even getting to the point wher we can decode certain brian patterns and see what you are seeing.

It has no mass, or energy

"It" also doesn't have a distinct existence outside of the brain it is formed on.

causal effect on the universe (other than through my agency).

What did you think was the source of your agency?

 

[Sarkus]

A pattern is only physical if it is made out of something physical Sarkus, like a pattern of seeds in a sunflower.

And your brain patterns, your mind, are made out of patterns of neuro-electrical energy firing around inside your cranium.
These patterns are very much physical - observable and measurable - although the patterns are not yet deciphered to any great degree.

If I only imagine a pattern of seeds, it is NOT physical. It has no mass, or energy, or causal effect on the universe (other than through my agency). It only becomes physical if I create something physical to resemble it e.g. paint it, or photograph it.

Your "imagined" seeds ARE a physical pattern within your brain that results in you imagining the picture. The physical properties of the "imagined" seeds are clearly not the same as real seeds - but that is merely a difference of physicality - not one of being physical or not.

Actually, your idea that a pattern in itself is physical, is symptomatic of the whole "God" debate. Some people perceive it, others do not, and will keep asking "what evidence do you have that it exists?". It's like asking to identify the chemical composition of beauty in a painting? Only the paint has chemistry.

So you're saying that "God" is an entirely subjective perception of a "pattern" in the physical world?

The difference is that with the "chemical composition of beauty in a painting" there is no argument about what the actual physicalilty is - merely the subjective viewpoint / emotion derived from it.

And if two people see the same painting and one sees beauty, the other not - we know they can both be correct because it is a purely subjective matter determined by the workings of their individual brains.
Are you really sure that people can accept something similar with God - that God can both exist and not?

 

[spidergoat]

Diogenes' Dog,

The conception of God you are describing bears little resemblance to the Christian God. It's more like Pantheism and Animism, which does lead to a greater respect for nature in nations like Japan. It would never fly in the west. The Abrahamic God is separate from nature, uses nature for the ends of mankind, and is ultimately unreal (the real being the afterlife). The concept of Tao is not anything like God.

Science has a mechanistic view of nature, because that's what it is! A greater scientific understanding of nature leads to greater environmentalism not less, as it is revealed how interconnected the mechanisms of nature are, and how we are dependent on their functioning for our lives.

consciousness is common to all sentient beings

A tautology. Sentient means conscious. Not all beings have the same degree of consciousness, nor is it necessary to life.

The mind shows no qualities that ARE physical! No mass, no energy, no dimensions etc.... The 'mind' is not the same as the 'brain', which does have mass, energy, dimensions etc.

You may effect my mind through altering my brain, and vica-versa but a thought or sensation does NOT have any physical qualities. It's the "hard" problem of the mind's relationship to matter.

There is no mind, there are only thoughts. Thoughts show up as activity in the physical brain. Mind is an abstract concept that describes the collective activity and states of the brain. The subjective experience of a mind is ultimately an illusion. That is the basic lession of most Eastern religions, and it is what contributes to the feeling of unity. The feeling of a separate mind is what separates us from reality.

 

[Lori_7]

Dog,

i think you will get your wish. it seems to me that what you're suggesting is really similar to what will be the religion of the false prophet and antichrist in the end times.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Dog,

i think you will get your wish. it seems to me that what you're suggesting is really similar to what will be the religion of the false prophet and antichrist in the end times.

they will believe in god....

also a thought my pastor passed onto me..antichrist does not neccesarily(sp) mean just one person... (anti-abortionist anti-war,anti-whatever)

it could simply mean all those that are anti-god, those that refuse to believe in god...

hmm..makes one wonder...

 

[mike47]

I do not see the rationale behind religion and that is to say any religion .
We have laws, common sense, logic and science .
We do not need religion as religion proved itself to be a man made non sense .

 

[NMSquirrel]

I do not see the rationale behind religion and that is to say any religion .
We have laws, common sense, logic and science .
We do not need religion as religion proved itself to be a man made non sense .

i think this needs more elaboration..
are you saying we dont need religion or we dont need god?

 

[Lori_7]

they will believe in god....

also a thought my pastor passed onto me..antichrist does not neccesarily(sp) mean just one person... (anti-abortionist anti-war,anti-whatever)

it could simply mean all those that are anti-god, those that refuse to believe in god...

hmm..makes one wonder...

not necessarily anti-god, but antichrist definitely.

 

[Lori_7]

i must say that anyone who thinks a religion is going to solve humanity's problems hasn't been paying attention...at all...not even a little.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

DD, not to put a downer on what you're discussing, but "religion", regardless of tenets held, is an organised approach to something. You have yet to detail anywhere why what you propose requires organisation?

I'm not suggesting any "organisation", or even a new religion. I'm arguing for religion (lit: re-connection) from a pragmatic point of view.

What I see in your lengthy OP is a call for nothing more than (re)education on some topics in line with your opinions on various matters, and a consensus opinion on the nature of the universe. Are we to be forced / coerced into believing some unified philosophical opinion? What of those who do not wish to believe, or believe something different?

Does putting forward a view on this forum mean demanding concensus through coercion? No! I'm proposing that our beliefs shape our world, and that we ARE an integral part of Nature and of the universe (fact). I'm arguing for a holism that reflects that fact.

And once you have a consensus... then what? Why must there be a religion, an organised approach to it? Do you really think that a religious approach can lead where an individual approach can not?
If so - why? Please explain it - which you haven't.

Yes, of course a religious (lit: re-connected) approach can lead where an individual approach can not. Co-operation works fantastically well. Being part of something greater than yourself is a natural human need. The alternative is alienation and conflict. However, I'm not sure where you get this idea about a single organised approach! People co-operate in all sorts of projects. I'm suggesting all religions should be a means of reconnecting us to some larger vision and having that vision is beneficial. Probably sport does too!

Further, all religions require a belief in something for which there is no evidence - and all religions fail Occam's razor compared to an entirely naturalistic world-view with no "shared consciousness", "oneness" or other such unproven and mostly unprovable claims. Until you remove everything for which there is no evidence you can not lay claim to rationality above an alternative that does.

Oh no! Not the "no evidence" claim again!!
Look, there is plenty of evidence that religion has always been important to Man, that people in all cultures have always had religious experiences, and that religions make people happier, and help them to live longer, and provide purpose and community. That is rational!

Rational religion... hmmm.

It is also a fact that we exist as an interconnected part of nature, and are inextricably part of the physical universe. To take a holistic view of ourselves as connected to the above is therefore rational. Not to do that is irrational. Many of our current epistemologies leave us alienated.

So please - why the need for a religion as opposed to merely an individual understanding?

You have answered your own question:
"sense of community etc.... sense of well-being / comfort..."
Religion means re-connection. That can be an individual understanding or a group one. Current religions sometimes get close to it. Atheism, hardly at all. Re-connection in whatever form is what I'm arguing for.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

The conception of God you are describing bears little resemblance to the Christian God. It's more like Pantheism and Animism, which does lead to a greater respect for nature in nations like Japan. It would never fly in the west. The Abrahamic God is separate from nature, uses nature for the ends of mankind, and is ultimately unreal (the real being the afterlife).

That explains why you dislike religion so much! That exploitative version of God is what I am opposing too (above), in proposing a reconnection!

However, all Abrahamic religions have panentheist (God includes nature + more) versions. God is Omnipresent in many of these religions too. However, it explains why the churches have been so slow to adopt an envirionmental ethic. I hope that is changing!

The concept of Tao is not anything like God

I think I've shown that the Tao described in e.g. the Tao Te Ching is very like the view of God in apophatic (mystical) Christianity, and also in neo-Platonist Christianity. It may not be what George Bush believed in... But don't take his beliefs as a well considered theology!

Science has a mechanistic view of nature, because that's what it is! A greater scientific understanding of nature leads to greater environmentalism not less, as it is revealed how interconnected the mechanisms of nature are, and how we are dependent on their functioning for our lives.

Science's mechanistic view of Nature is cultural, and an assumption, not self-evident. Some still believe that animals are just biological mechanisms! We vivisect them for 'scientific purposes', which we would never do with e.g. mentally retarded children of similar sentience!

Science is revealing our interdependence with nature, and therefore highlighting our long term self-interest in reducing emissions etc. However, the problem with it's mechanistic assumption is why should we care for a machine, beyond our own self-interests? So of course we don't when personal profit is involved. Doomed planet, alienated humanity.

There is no mind, there are only thoughts. Thoughts show up as activity in the physical brain.

The fact that a thought (e.g. 2+2=4) is accompanied by activity in the brain, does NOT make it the same entity as that activity. This is a basic category error.

You may believe thought is supervenient on brain activity, but there are a number of objections and a total lack of bridging laws to connect the two.

Mind is an abstract concept that describes the collective activity and states of the brain. The subjective experience of a mind is ultimately an illusion. That is the basic lession of most Eastern religions, and it is what contributes to the feeling of unity. The feeling of a separate mind is what separates us from reality.

Well, yes and no! That's a gross misunderstanding of 'mind' in Eastern religion if you think that means mind does not exist whereas 'states of the brain' do! Buddhists have a doctrine of emptiness, (shunyata) of "no self". Nothing exists in its own right. All perceptions are fleeting, impermanent. That also means your 'states of the brain' are a transitory illusion in Buddhism (and Vedanta):

All composed things are like a dream,
a phantom, a drop of dew, a flash of lightning.
That is how to meditate on them,
that is how to observe them."

However, I'd agree with your second bit. The goal of enlightenment to escape the illusion of duality - maya. That's what I am talking about in my original post with 'cosmic consciousness'. All is One! That can be a non-theistic or a theistic concept, depending on your culture and religion.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Everything that makes a pattern is made from the interaction of matter, energy and forces.

So the Fibonacci series of numbers is made from the interaction of matter, energy and forces?!

Really swarm? What matter, what energy, what forces!?? :bugeye:

It is just as physical as the sunflower seeds and with the current imagining technology we can look inside your head and take a picture of the pattern and compare it with other brain patterns and see the difference.

What you would have is a brain pattern... not an imaginary pattern of sunflower seeds. Even you must be able to see the difference?

If someone else imagines the same pattern of seeds, their brainscan will not be identical.

We are even getting to the point wher we can decode certain brian patterns and see what you are seeing.

I don't think so yet! Brains are uniquely different in each individual. What might be possible is to say that you are seeing something previously correlated to your brain scan. E.g. I show you a zebra, and record your scan, I can then tell when you visualise the zebra.

"It" also doesn't have a distinct existence outside of the brain it is formed on.

Your dreams must feel very cramped then!

What did you think was the source of your agency?

You will almost certainly get a Nobel Prize if you can solve that one!