Why the Need for Religion?

[Magic Man]

I wouldn't meet your perception of the dogs, right; I would meet my percpetion of them, because they are objects in the world that *I* experience, as I experience it. My mind is the cumulation of interpretations of shape, size, density, colour, number, distance, behaviors, predictions, relations, memory comparisons --all the values that are assigned by conscious awareness. Those interpretations come about via the faculty of imagination.

But, this seems to say that they are more than just a perception, whether it's yours or mine. That would mean that there would be a difference between a real God, if one existed and Stephen's perception of it. If I wasn't alive to experience my dogs, would they still exist?

I guess that last part is just another take on "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it still make a sound?"

 

[Izdaari]

There is no spoon. :yoda:

 

[Willamena]

But, this seems to say that they are more than just a perception, whether it's yours or mine. That would mean that there would be a difference between a real God, if one existed and Stephen's perception of it. If I wasn't alive to experience my dogs, would they still exist?

I guess that last part is just another take on "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it still make a sound?"

But what is the difference to Stephen between a real God (or anything) and Stephen's perception of it? Nada. How could there be, since we only know things through our perceptions and interpretations... No matter what way Stephen looks at it, it will always reduce to Stephen's perception of it.

Same goes for me. Same goes for you. The "I" is the most important part of that sentence, not the "objects" (though one is impossible without the other).

Since you are alive to experience your dogs, they exist for you.

The difference between "more than just a perception" and "just a perception" is just a "just." It's the value we place on one structuring of 'the world as we know it' over the other. We can structure the world we know as a thing unto itself, or relative to other things --either way, it will always be "just" the world we know. In both senses, there are objects; in both senses, there is an independent observer, the "knower," howevermuch he may be considered invisible in the former view and included in the latter. Both structures are ones we each individually, independently, temporaneously and contemporaneously, consciously create. That's the world we "live" in --more importantly, that's "us" living in the world.

 

[Magic Man]

But what is the difference to Stephen between a real God (or anything) and Stephen's perception of it? Nada. How could there be, since we only know things through our perceptions and interpretations... No matter what way Stephen looks at it, it will always reduce to Stephen's perception of it.

Same goes for me. Same goes for you. The "I" is the most important part of that sentence, not the "objects."

Since you are alive to experience your dogs, they exist for you.

The difference between "more than just a perception" and "just a perception" is just a "just." It's the value we place on one structuring of 'the world as we know it' over the other. We can structure the world we know as a thing unto itself, or relative to other things --either way, it will always be "just" the world we know. In both senses, there are objects; in both senses, there is an independent observer, the "knower," howevermuch he may be considered invisible in the former view and included in the latter. Both structures are ones we each individually, independently, temporaneously and contemporaneously, consciously create. That's the world we "live" in --more importantly, that's "us" living in the world.

Even if the "I" is the most important thing, you can still make the distinction between something onto which you can project your perceptions and something that is only made up of your perceptions.

If I imagine just in my mind someone murdering me, then I'll still be here to imagine other things. If someone actually murders me, it will be the last thing entered into my imagination.

 

[sandandfoam]

If I imagine just in my mind someone murdering me, then I'll still be here to imagine other things. If someone actually murders me, it will be the last thing entered into my imagination.

That is your belief.

 

[sandandfoam]

You say "a Christian of sorts". What does that mean and what are your views exactly? I'd be interested to see how an atheist goes progresses through logic to a form of Christianity.

I posted this before. It's the very short version:-
In my hopelessly uninformed opinion I think that everything I see and experience can have the label 'God' applied to it. It feels right for me to apply that label to it. So for me yes there is a God. I cannot demonstrate this to anyone else but I don't feel the need to. This is because for me God is about subjectivity not objectivity. I construct reality in a way that involves God. I agree that it may be no more than a construction but I don't think that detracts from the experience. Take Santa, my kids know he's there, I think I know better. For them he's real. That's enough. Same for God and I.


Edit- Add to that Pelagius's idea that believing in Christ is unimportant, trying to be like Him is, and Eriugena's ideas about nature as Theophany and you've pretty much got where I'm at.

 

[Magic Man]

I posted this before. It's the very short version:-
In my hopelessly uninformed opinion I think that everything I see and experience can have the label 'God' applied to it. It feels right for me to apply that label to it. So for me yes there is a God. I cannot demonstrate this to anyone else but I don't feel the need to. This is because for me God is about subjectivity not objectivity. I construct reality in a way that involves God. I agree that it may be no more than a construction but I don't think that detracts from the experience. Take Santa, my kids know he's there, I think I know better. For them he's real. That's enough. Same for God and I.


Edit- Add to that Pelagius's idea that believing in Christ is unimportant, trying to be like Him is, and Eriugena's ideas about nature as Theophany and you've pretty much got where I'm at.

That doesn't sound a whole lot like Christianity to me. Am I missing something? Yours sounds a lot more palatable than traditional Christianity.

To me the difference in your example is that for your kids the only idea they have is that Santa is real. Once they hear the idea that he might not be, and they think about it logically, they'll realize he's not, and that's the point where it's hard to return to the belief.

And thank you for explaining that.

 

[sandandfoam]

To me the difference in your example is that for your kids the only idea they have is that Santa is real. Once they hear the idea that he might not be, and they think about it logically, they'll realize he's not, and that's the point where it's hard to return to the belief.

That's true. But I'm not interested in belief. I'm with Thomas Aquinas - you can't believe and know something at the same time.
Nature as Theophany - I 'see' God everywhere.
I also relate to Spinoza's concept of God where "whatever is is in God where God is the explanation for whatever"

And thank you for explaining that.

Welcome

 

[Willamena]

Even if the "I" is the most important thing, you can still make the distinction between something onto which you can project your perceptions and something that is only made up of your perceptions.

If I imagine just in my mind someone murdering me, then I'll still be here to imagine other things. If someone actually murders me, it will be the last thing entered into my imagination.

Is this "imagine" example supposed to be one of "projecting your perceptions onto something," or of "something made up of perceptions"? As we perceive imaginary things to be imaginary, it would appear to be both.

 

[Magic Man]

Is this "imagine" example supposed to be one of "projecting your perceptions onto something," or of "something made up of perceptions"? As we perceive imaginary things to be imaginary, it would appear to be both.

This would be something made up of perceptions. There is no other evidence to support my perception of being murdered, only my imaginings.

 

[Willamena]

This would be something made up of perceptions. There is no other evidence to support my perception of being murdered, only my imaginings.

And if there were other evidence, it too would be perceived.

 

[Magic Man]

And if there were other evidence, it too would be perceived.

True, but there would still be other evidence.

 

[sandandfoam]

True, but there would still be other evidence.

Other than perceptions ?

 

[GayAtheist]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger 4 b.c.- 65 a.d.

 

[Magic Man]

Other than perceptions ?

Yes. Just like my dogs are things onto which you project your perceptions.

 

[Escéptico]

Why the need for the Fine Arts? Philosophy? Music? Language?

Good answer.

I resent the way religion has monopolized the 'inner search,' and set itself up as the only path to meaning in human lives. It's like a hammer-maker denying the existence of other tools.

If people want to pretend that significant subjective experiences are only meaningful in the context of boundless credulity, sky fairies, and life after death, I respectfully disagree. Fulfilling love, honest engagement with art and science, and an open imagination are important facets of the individual's inner search.