What Atheists Do Not Grasp--and Why (ritual, choice, doctrine, experience)

[Rolling_Stone]

Driving through the hills of southern California in the summer is like driving through the folds in a blanket of golden velvet. Up close, though, you see only thorns and brambles. View a mosaic from a distance and the image is clear and beautiful; up close, the image is lost in a jumble isolated bits and pieces.

In the same way, an extremely large, complex and highly automatic-appearing mechanism naturally conceals the intelligence behind it from any and all inhabits very far below the level of the Originator. Therefore, is it inevitable that universe mechanisms would appear mindless to the lower orders intelligences such as man. Making it a conclusion, however, is a matter of philosophy rather than one of evidence or experience.

Assuming the presence of an Originator, it would be a kind of intellectual rape if It compelled in any way, from within or from without, recognition of it by creatures that incapable or unwilling to explore life beyond the most coarse elements of life— physical sensation, emotion and intellect— and cruel to give the same creature a strong desire for knowledge placed beyond his reach. Hence, there is religion. And while wholly natural, it is also optional.

Rationalism’s concept of perfection does not admit to a yearning and need for completion— the disclosure of Totality in the self and the self in Totality. It prefers the perfection of a stone, a perfection in which the relationship between the part and the Whole which is not a drama of two that finds resolution in a third. Religion, on the other hand, is Spirit acting in cooperation with the human mind and gives birth to a living, immortal soul. To rationalism this is superstition. It simply cannot relate to the symbolic character of the language employed by religion any more than an ape can relate to the meaning contained in a book. Even amongst religionists, conditioned to revere objectivity above personal experience, the concept of the union of two natures—God in man and man in God—is confusing.

Religion is by no means a disclosure or experience of anything in the world of things. God is not an object or thing, but spirit. One cannot experience or enter into communion with spirit through any sort of objectification. God is life, and his Being comes to light after the division of subject and object. A doctrine that professes to meet the needs of abstract reason kills God, so to speak, by depriving him of a dynamic presence in the interior life.

[Sunstone]

I agree there are limits to human understanding, Rolling Stone, but I think the atheist and the religionist are in the same boat when it comes to that. To say the atheist is the only one of the two who fails to grasp all that's implied by the fact there are limits to human understanding is a bit misleading, don't you think? After all, there are plenty of theists who also fail to grasp all that's implied.

[Rolling_Stone]

That's why I said:

Even amongst religionists, the concept of the union of two natures— God in man and man in God— is confusing.

[Random]

Excellent OP, Rolling Stone. Kudos...

[Rolling_Stone]

Conditioning is difficult to overcome, don't you think? Even when explicitly told that God is not an object the intellect can grasp, non-spiritual minds—atheist and religionist alike—insist on thinking the intellect is the only viable method of apprehension.

[Aasimar]

Conditioning is difficult to overcome, don't you think? Even when explicitly told that God is not an object the intellect can grasp, non-spiritual minds—atheist and religionist alike—insist on thinking the intellect is the only viable method of apprehension.

Therin lies a conundrum. The people who told me God is not an object intellect can grasp are the same species as me. I have the choice to 1. Believe they somehow know more then me and believe them or 2. Dismiss what they are saying as wishful thinking and continue to seek the answers. The beauty of intelligence is in the discovery of new answers, I hope we never find the final answer, life with all the answers would be incredibly dull.

[angellous_evangellous]

A true atheist would never buy a used car.

[Aasimar]

Here's a good way of putting it. As an agnostic I do not believe in god, though I do not deny that he may exist. If he does exist, he cannot be grasped by the senses I have been given. You can be in awe of that which you do not understand without claiming to understand. I think your post was directed only at Athiests though, as Agnostics have a small but fundamental difference.

Rationalism’s concept of perfection does not admit to a yearning and need for completion

That is a very good way of looking at it, but my personal credo would be the exact same quote, slightly modified.

Agnosticism's concept of perfection admits to a yearning for but not a need to achieve completion. Of course we want the answers. But we don't need them.

Now I've gotta go get some delicious chinese food from a mom and pop joint down the street (YUM!) be back in awhile.

[Rolling_Stone]

Aasimar, sounds to me are you assuming God-consciousness is having "all the answers." Now, where did I say that?