The gulf between us

[sun rise]

I have experienced attachment to people and other animals. I think that is the closest, I am not entirely sure what love actually is to be honest. Definitions vary considerably.

That is one of the root issues because to me "God is Love". On the physical level, love is gravity the attraction of objects to each other. On the emotional level, love is potentiated by hormones and expressed as pair bonding, bonding with infants. On a less personal level, it's finding connection in neighborhood, country and the like. Then at a more universal level, it's seeing the humanity as a whole. Then love can be expressed at a higher level with analogy, metaphor and simile and the search becomes personal. This is not the realm of religion as expressed by the intellect but of the spirit.

 

[columbus]

That is one of the root issues because to me "God is Love". On the physical level, love is gravity the attraction of objects to each other. On the emotional level, love is potentiated by hormones and expressed as pair bonding, bonding with infants. On a less personal level, it's finding connection in neighborhood, country and the like. Then at a more universal level, it's seeing the humanity as a whole. Then love can be expressed at a higher level with analogy, metaphor and simile and the search becomes personal. This is not the realm of religion as expressed by the intellect but of the spirit.

You know what I think is a huge part of this problem? The poor vocabulary of the English language concerning the concept of " love".
I love my Mom. I love bacon cheeseburgers. I love my partner of decades. I love Tolkiens "Lord of the Rings" books. I love Freedom. I love the USA. I love Jesus and the RCC. I love falling asleep listening to the rain.
The word Love can mean enormously different things in the English language and that presents problems in communication.
Tom

 

[Corvus]

I found myself in the same position for many years as an atheist. For me progress came from scrutinizing my own beliefs, rather than everyone's else's. Which meant first acknowledging them as such. Once you realize there is no 'default' truth, that you can't shift the burden of proof away from your own beliefs.... the logic that leads most of free thinking humanity to conclude God, is much easier to understand.

There is no absolute truth, however the test of any truth is how closely it matches observation or how accurate it's predictions are, or how successful the application of these truths are in reality. In the case of the scientific method's huge success in every area of human life conceivable, it is clear that the closest thing to absolute truth is an empirically derived theory that has yet to be discredited or otherwise modified by superior evidence. I do not see that any other system of belief is so eagerly self correcting. No other way of looking at the world has changed this world so much.

 

[PureX]

I don't know that such is a very popular position at all. It may be, I don't know. But you should probably consider that theism, specifically, is a very problematic proposition which not even all supernaturalists should be expected to embrace.

What's so problematic about it? We have no proof that gods exist or do not exist, nor any verification of God's nature if such exists. So we are free to determine if and what gods exist, or don't, according to our own wisdom and desires, and to act according to our faith in that determination.

And in doing so, most people experience a significant improvement in the quality of their existential experience (whether their gods exist or not). So it is logical and reasonable that they should continue in their faith-based belief and behavior until they're proven false, or otherwise ineffective. (Same thing, really.)

What about this do you find "problematic"?

 

[Quintessence]

I cannot communicate to those concerned and explain effectively why their perspective is problematic since it is based on irrational premises that do not rely on logical construction of theory derived from empirical data.

From this, it sounds like you are not interested in communicating with theists (however you are defining them), you want to preach at them or tell them how wrong they are. If your approach demonstrates you are not interested in listening to them - that what you really want to do is tell them what to think and that their way of doing things is a "problem" - that's more than a little rude and disrespectful. It should not at all be surprising that such behavior creates rifts or gulfs. Most people don't react well to that kind of thing.

Therefore there is no exchange of information on any level but re assertion of individual beliefs and articles of faith, in order to refute scientific claims, on certain matters. It is difficult to explain in fact what I hope to achieve, I guess it is the acknowledgement that they are rejecting logical interpretation of scientific fact for a tower of cards. I guess I want to know why.

It's interesting that you see things this way, because I'm not sure it's how I would interpret the matter. For example, I find it odd that you wouldn't consider people telling stories about their worldviews to be sharing information. I find those stories all very interesting, even where I don't agree with them. I also wouldn't say that someone who disagrees with me has built a "tower of cards" or something. They just see things differently than I do. It isn't necessarily that they are "rejecting" my way of interpreting things. They come from a different culture, a different background. That is the "why" for me.

What is this thing you call spirituality/connection with God? Where does your unwarranted certainty arise? How can it override empirical evidence and logically extrapolated theory? How do you demonstrate or prove it?

When you ask those questions, I'd aim to eschew judgmental-sounding language like "unwarranted." To the beholder, it's perfectly warranted. That's important to understand, I think. Just because it isn't good enough for you or doesn't make sense to you does not mean it is so for another.

Sometimes it's also about asking the right questions. One thing I notice fairly often is people holding up various religions to standards that make no sense for the discipline. Religions are not sciences. Demonstrations and proofs are frequently not the point and not necessarily relevant. When it comes to asking and answering questions like "what is the right relationship between myself and others?" (one of the many questions that religions of the world have teachings related to) it is not a matter of proofs or demonstrations. It's a matter of traditions, values, culture, upbringing, opinions.

Not sure if any of this is at all helpful for you, but these are the thoughts that came to mind at this moment. Overall, I think suspending expectations and the ability to get outside of the box you are thinking in may help with your goal. For some, this is much easier said than done.

 

[sun rise]

You know what I think is a huge part of this problem? The poor vocabulary of the English language concerning the concept of " love".
I love my Mom. I love bacon cheeseburgers. I love my partner of decades. I love Tolkiens "Lord of the Rings" books. I love Freedom. I love the USA. I love Jesus and the RCC. I love falling asleep listening to the rain.
The word Love can mean enormously different things in the English language and that presents problems in communication.
Tom

Amen, brother.

What I had in mind on a personal level was expressed by Heinlein as Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.

 

[PureX]

You know what I think is a huge part of this problem? The poor vocabulary of the English language concerning the concept of " love".
I love my Mom. I love bacon cheeseburgers. I love my partner of decades. I love Tolkiens "Lord of the Rings" books. I love Freedom. I love the USA. I love Jesus and the RCC. I love falling asleep listening to the rain.
The word Love can mean enormously different things in the English language and that presents problems in communication.
Tom

It's not just the word "love". It's many very similarly significant words like "existence", "cognition", "reality", "relativity", and so on. There is so much ambiguity in these that it's nearly impossible for us to discuss certain fundamental subjects without almost immediately talking past each other.

I agree with your observation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no absolute truth, however the test of any truth is how closely it matches observation or how accurate it's predictions are, or how successful the application of these truths are in reality. In the case of the scientific method's huge success in every area of human life conceivable, it is clear that the closest thing to absolute truth is an empirically derived theory that has yet to be discredited or otherwise modified by superior evidence. I do not see that any other system of belief is so eagerly self correcting. No other way of looking at the world has changed this world so much.

We agree entirely here.. but what fun is that?!

 

[RedDragon94]

How would that follow from what he said? Atheism is atheism, and that answer at least did not hint at anything beyond that.

Alright, I get it, you hate adjectives.

 

[columbus]

It's not just the word "love". It's many very similarly significant words like "existence", "cognition", "reality", "relativity", and so on. There is so much ambiguity in these that it's nearly impossible for us to discuss certain fundamental subjects without almost immediately talking past each other.

I agree with your observation.

Also, "facts" and "truth" and "know".

The difference between what religious people mean by those words and what I do makes it difficult to communicate.

That is the "gulf", as far as I can tell. Religious people have their own personal meaning for these words, and assert that the problem with us non-theists is that we prefer to rebel against God.
Tom

 

[sun rise]

Also, "facts" and "truth" and "know".

The difference between what religious people mean by those words and what I do makes it difficult to communicate.

That is the "gulf", as far as I can tell. Religious people have their own personal meaning for these words, and assert that the problem with us non-theists is that we prefer to rebel against God.
Tom

Another way of looking at this is illustrated by a Rumi poem

There are two kinds of intelligence: one acquired,
as a child in school memorizes facts and concepts
from books and from what the teacher says,
collecting information from the traditional sciences
as well as from the new sciences.

With such intelligence you rise in the world.
You get ranked ahead or behind others
in regard to your competence in retaining
information. You stroll with this intelligence
in and out of fields of knowledge, getting always more
marks on your preserving tablets.

There is another kind of tablet,
one already completed and preserved inside you.
A spring overflowing its springbox. A freshness
in the center of the chest. This other intelligence
does not turn yellow or stagnate. It's fluid,
and it doesn't move from outside to inside
through the conduits of plumbing-learning.

This second knowing is a fountainhead
from within you, moving out.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

I have had dozens of failed discussions here now, usually ending up with me putting hostile theists who resent my dogged adherence to logic, on ignore. I was going to put you on ignore, because I also found you somewhat offensive, in earlier responses to me. However I did not.

All areas, religion is illogical from start to finish, mainly the rejection of the scientific method in favour of articles of faith, when those articles of faith contradict scientific theory. That's a problem.

The word grokk is a product of sci fi. It means to consider/think/know etc..my religion is thinking logically, with reasoned and considered appreciation of empirical data.

I read that sci fi novel years ago. Which one was that, Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land?

I'm neither theist nor atheist. I'll say that science has its own unprovable premises which call on presumption of belief. The so-called "laws" of science, for example. Another is assumption that you can know the part separate from the whole. Another such premise is inherited from the Judeo-Christian prophetic tradition, which is separation of humans from God, except in science it is separation of humans from Nature and the world -- which, in our use of science in the service of capitalism to objectify, exploit, dismantle, poison, pollute, and destroy nature, is having more widespread, deeper, more profound and more devastating effect on the planet and the future of all life on it than any religion ever had. However, I'll also criticize religion: for all its talk about morals it has been unable to mount an effective critique, and furthermore, it largely has been a participant by erecting an ideological justification of this process destruction of human cultures, spread of inequality, and exploitation and destruction of the planet. I say a pox on both their houses.

The best critique that I have seen yet comes from the late Canadian ecologist J. Stan Rowe with his ecosyspherics (not biosphere, not environment) theory or worldview, with its "Manifesto for the Earth." And one of the best practical responses, in part extending from its association with Rowe, is the 41-year effort of the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas to change human agriculture and society from what they call its "10,000 year mistake," of building an agriculture and society based annual plants, to an agriculture and society based on perennial strains of those plants. They worked closely with J. Stan Rowe, are influenced by the thought of the mathematician-physicist-philosopher-theologian Alfred North Whitehead, and are involved in a New Agrarian Movement -- among other many and diverse elements underlying their work. See ecospherics.net

 

[Laughing Coyote]

Emotions are not good at all. They delude and confound people. Emotive people make terrible mistakes.

And yet it came about through natural selection, so it stands to reason it gave some advantage.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

I always evidence all of my claims without exception.

So this proves Grokk-ists have a sense of humor!

 

[LuisDantas]

Alright, I get it, you hate adjectives.

If you got it, you are doing a superb job of hiding it.

I just pointed out that you claimed the opposite of what he did. Where did you get the idea that he was a gnostic atheistic when he said the opposite?

 

[LuisDantas]

What's so problematic about it?

Theism is problematic, in a nutshell, because it is rooted in a very vague concept and insists on pretending otherwise.

We have no proof that gods exist or do not exist, nor any verification of God's nature if such exists.

Indeed. It is about as customizable a belief as they come.

The odd thing is that those who most value it are also those who make a point of pretending it to be a well-delimited, homogeneous belief - when it is anything but!

So we are free to determine if and what gods exist, or don't, according to our own wisdom and desires, and to act according to our faith in that determination.

Too bad that so many people get carried away with it and attempt to justify their actions with their theistic beliefs.

And in doing so, most people experience a significant improvement in the quality of their existential experience

Eh. Not in my experience, no sire.

(whether their gods exist or not). So it is logical and reasonable that they should continue in their faith-based belief and behavior until they're proven false, or otherwise ineffective. (Same thing, really.)

Wrong. Just plain wrong really.

What about this do you find "problematic"?

The failure to acknowledge the responsibility of belief, mostly.

 

[RedDragon94]

I just pointed out that you claimed the opposite of what he did. Where did you get the idea that he was a gnostic atheistic when he said the opposite?

Because 99% of being sure of something is enough to say I know such and such.

 

[RedDragon94]

That is the opposite of what he said, you know...

I thought for sure he said he was close to being sure there was no God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because 99% of being sure of something is enough to say I know such and such.

Is that a statement or a question?

I thought for sure he said he was close to being sure there was no God.

Correct. Then you saw fit to spin it as "gnostic theism".

That does not make any sense, and hints at ill faith from you.

 

[RedDragon94]

Correct. Then you saw fit to spin it as "gnostic theism".

That does not make any sense, and hints at ill faith from you.

I meant Gnostic Atheism... My typing skills are crap obviously.