Atheism

[Barry]

It does seem like a rather long throw. It seems to me that there is some sort of organizing principle to the universe, but I hesitate to call it God. I prefer mystery...

[jbox]

The first and most essential question to ask is this: Did god create man or did man create god?

I like Frank Lloyd Wright's notion. He was uncomfortable with the capital G god. He preferred to equate god with "nature".

[Marty M]

It seems to me that there is some sort of organizing principle to the universe, but I hesitate to call it God. I prefer mystery...

Or possibly consciousness?

marty

[JuliaB]

The first and most essential question to ask is this: Did god create man or did man create god?

I like Frank Lloyd Wright's notion. He was uncomfortable with the capital G god. He preferred to equate god with "nature".

My answer to the first question as filtered through the quote provided:

Nature (or translate if you will to "God" with a capital G) did create "man" and man in turn created "god"--it sure seems to me that to think otherwise is pure solipsism. A "god" cannot create man, as he is a product of our imaginations.

My 2 sense!

[gardenmaniac]

I think it was Isaac Asimov who said this:
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

[CSummer]

I can understand your being uncomfortable with the term "God," Barry. To a very great extent, it refers to some human-mind-contrived concept seeking to relieve other minds from grappling with what is beyond the mind. And it has been offered as a way to capitalize on the fear, confusion or sense of impotence that can come up when the finite human mind is faced with the reality of existence.

Atheism seems like a rebellion against God-concepts and perhaps yet another way of avoiding dealing with the incomprehensible by denying it exists. Of course, if atheism says that God - as we conceptualize her/him/it - doesn't exist, this may well be true, because all such concepts are mere products of the human mind and would inevitably fall far short of a reality that is beyond the mind.

Buckminster Fuller wrote a book titled: No More Second-hand God, and I think the title is what I appreciate most about the book. To me, a "second-hand God" is a belief in a construct that is accepted as "truth." It's like putting our minds into a box or neat little package rather than opening them to experiencing 'what is' - without retreating to concepts or made-up explanations. So perhaps I am an atheist by some definition, as I seem to have little use for the ideas of "God" offered by others.

What appeals to me is a self-discovered spirituality that goes beyond beliefs or mental constructs. Life seems like it is ultimately a spiritual journey and can teach us all we need to know or offer us ways of directly experiencing the truths and reality of existence. And perhaps my deepest longing is to be among a community of fellow travelers on this journey, supporting each other in our individual quests for an ever-expanding relationship with the mind-transcending mystery of being (our own and the universe's).

I'm not opposed to hearing or reading what others have to say about their experience, what they've found to be true and what they recommend. But I see life as my greatest teacher, and many of my fellow humans (including young children) as having something to offer. I also have reason to believe that once a group that is embarked in mutual support on this journey comes together into true community, the group itself becomes the guru as its collective wisdom arises.

Does a universal being exist - perhaps one that is the source and context for all that we experience? I suspect the answer is hidden in plain sight!

CSummer

["Mad" Miles]

This is something I wrote about a week ago. In a similar discussion. It's one of my more succinct iterations of this idea:

A friend posted this -

"As creatures of faith, we must choose either to be religious or superstitious, to believe in things that cannot be proved or to believe in things that can be disproved."
--Wendell Berry.

My response -

Or choose to not be a "creature of faith" and avoid the act of believing altogether.

My friends responded with -

F1: Ah, but then how does one bother lifting that one leg out of bed onto the floor, first thing in the morning?

F2: Rationality is an act of faith.perhaps I can rephrase that in a manner that is less likely to make me appear as a freak: Science is a rigorously codified version of the capacity to imagine things.


My reply -

I define Faith and Belief in this context as that which is unquestioned and held in the face of criticism and doubt. i.e. Religious/Spiritual Conviction. Feeling confident that something is true, without depending on it to be true in order to have some sense of meaning, is not what I am abjuring.

A "believer" got snarky about my use of "abjure", claimed they, "had to look it up".

My rejoinders (it got predictably complicated, I won't regurgitate the blow by blow.) -

One can have a, "sense of meaning", without that, "sense", being a claim of certainty in the face of doubt or criticism. "Meaning", is a very fluid, ambiguous and complex idea. Hence entire fields of Philosophy contained within Ontology and Logic, not to mention Metaphysics, sometimes referred to as, "The Theory of Meaning".

Humans are meaning creating and meaning assigning creatures. So far the only ones we can be certain exist (unless, of course, you're a "Believer" in some form or other of Religion and/or Spirituality).

But how "meaning" works? What are its possibilities, variations, combinations? That is a very large and ongoing question among those who study the matter. I quit the study over two decades ago, but twelve years of close attention, gave me plenty of various approaches to the matter.

I find those variations interesting. Except for the versions that claim to have the definitive answer.

I was arguing against, or at least opposing, Religious Faith. That those who depend on it for their ability to find meaning, do not understand, accept or agree with my assertion, is no surprise to me. I used to have profound Faith (in the Religious/Spiritual sense) and when I ABJURED (My emphasis from the other discussion, for reasons too trivial, and context specific, to repeat) it was consciously, intentionally and for what I still consider to be good. reason.

I have never expected those who have not taken that difficult journey to accept, understand or embrace it. The responses when I have stated my position, are pretty consistent.

I even get flack from Atheists and Agnostics, because I am neither. In the case of the first, one must assert a belief, in the case of the second, one must care about the question. I do neither. It simply does not interest me, (other than intellectually, and I haven't heard any truly unique takes on these matters for several decades now. I'm always open to considering new ideas!).

It is possible to live, be happy, enjoy life, assert and act upon good values without having an unquestioned faith in things unseen. The reasons why so many depend on faith, well, that's a much larger topic. Huge swaths of history, philosophy, psychology, sociology and political science, would nave to be explored to begin to give a comprehensive answer.

-

The rest was predictable. The "believer" took umbrage. You know the drill.
____

So, Atheist, Agnostic, Believer? Count me out. I don't care. I'll worry about these matters, if, when, I have to. In the mean time, I'm glad to be alive. And will make the best of it all, without clinging to some abstract standard of meaning which requires I posit some "truth claim" beyond my own experience. i.e. "Existence".

__.

[podfish]

It does seem like a rather long throw. It seems to me that there is some sort of organizing principle to the universe, but I hesitate to call it God. I prefer mystery...

"organizing principle" doesn't imply an active principle. Who/what organized stars into constellations?

Organization is emergent and observed, it isn't necessarily order imposed on chaos by an agent.

[neil]

One can have a, "sense of meaning", without that, "sense", being a claim of certainty in the face of doubt or criticism.

This is so refreshing to hear, Miles. Thanks!

On the question of "meaning" and "how it works," some of the most useful and fascinating thinking is still Eugene Gendlin's 1962 doctoral dissertation Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning (most recent printing by Northwestern University Press 1997). Gendlin demonstrates how there is a definite felt aspect to meaning. He shows how symbols and "felt meaning" are necessarily in functional relationship to one another. In fact, Gendlin identifies seven unique functional relations between felt meaning and symbols. (A small group of us have just began a 10-week study of these online, if anyone here is really interested.)

I am also reminded of something Eckhart Tolle said: Don't believe everything you think!

Neil

[Barry]

"organizing principle" doesn't imply an active principle. Who/what organized stars into constellations?

Organization is emergent and observed, it isn't necessarily order imposed on chaos by an agent.

In my view, everything in the universe is a perfect expression of whatever is going on, and embodies it. There's nothing else.

That could be the "laws" of nature, starting with sub-atomic physics, which we don't quite fully understand yet. And yet, there seems to be something more, especially once consciousness is accounted for.

[Jim Wilson]

A few thoughts from a theist:

There are really excellent works, both modern and ancient, that illuminate the case for the existence of God. I've spent a lot of time reading them. I still think Plotinus might have done one of the best jobs; but he's a difficult read.

Personally, I don't think that the existence of God can be proved in the sense of a mathematical proof. One can, I think, present something like a 'good case', but those who don't agree also have their 'good case'.

Believing in God is, I think, more like believing that some music is beautiful than it is relying on a proof. If I think a particular piece of music is beautiful, and someone else denies it, and then tells me to prove the music is beautiful, well I don't think the beautiful is agreeable to that kind of questioning. (Which, incidentally, is one reason why I like Plotinus, because he equates The One, or God, with the beautiful.) And if I explain to someone that I experience a felt transcendental presence at times, a kind of grace permeating all of existence, and someone tells me that's nonsense, there's not much I can say in response. On the other hand, I don't feel a strong need to do so, just as I don't feel compelled to prove that some music is beautiful.

Jim

[Hotspring 44]

In my view, everything in the universe is a perfect expression of whatever is going on, and embodies it. There's nothing else.
That could be the "laws" of nature, starting with sub-atomic physics, which we don't quite fully understand yet. And yet, there seems to be something more, especially once consciousness is accounted for.

For all we know, there could be something comparable to subatomic physics that is so much physically smaller in size than the subatomic particles are thought to be, then how much physically larger the known universe in comparison is to those subatomic particles, and the known universe IE: planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. may actually be the subatomic sized particles compared to what is the unknown universe at large, and those things that are so much physically “bigger” than the known universe may be subatomic particles compared to the next larger thing etc.

There is subatomic to subatomic to subatomic; infinitely small. There is also universe upon universe upon universe; infinitely big too.
I think it is both expanding and contracting simultaneously.

1 - The belief in “God” I think is human attempt at finding an invariable constant where things are naturally in a continuous state of change.

2- In generalized terms religion, I think is human attempt at maintaining an invariable constant with specific way to think about and act regarding the aforementioned human contrived “belief ” that there must be (is) a conscious Über -being consisting of invariable constant that for whatever reason scrutinizes humans “here on Earth” ever so specifically as if humans on this planet are somehow, (“miraculously”) one of; if not the main concern of that (only) ultimate, Über –being.

3- So the question: Is everything that we think and/or believe contrived within our own individual minds and essentially nonexistent anywhere else other than our own individual mind’s the way that we think, feel and believe etc.?...

... Because of three-dimensional space (and the possible or theoretical existence of more than just three dimensional space), the answer to that question could be that no matter what we're looking at or thinking, even though two different people would write it down and it would be an exact quote we still have different angles of prospective because we are looking at it from a different place, angle of prospective in the three-dimensional space and also our brains are not exactly the same because our experiences differ, and even though we apparently seem to believe we exist in three dimensions physically, however that way of thinking is rather limited to the contrived terms of three dimensions which obviously has potential to change into more dimensions depending on how we use our conscious, whether it be individual or collective.

You could probably call me an atheist, agnostic, or even a “believer” when I say the following, but the one caveat, I might add before making the statement is that my understanding of things has been known to change which I “believe” is ultimately unavoidable:

4- The way my mind contrives is that there is only one absolute constant; IE: ‘the only absolute constant is continuous change’. I know it sounds paradoxical, that’s why I call it the “paradox constant”.

Whether or not someone would call that an abstract (or “absolute”) belief in or of a “God” of some sort or being an “agnostic” or “atheist” would; I suppose, depend on how each individual would contrive what that (“paradox constant”.) statement meant.

I think that if somebody did absolutely believe in some kind of God they would think of it in one particular way, a person that is "agnostic" most likely would think of it another way, and a person that is an "atheist" would think of it in yet another way and of course a person that fits into the none of the above category could, or most likely would think of it in an entirely different way than any of the above; or choose to not at all think of or consider it at all in the first place in which case that may actually be the same way as one of the above might actually choose.

[jbox]

For all we know, there could be ...

Wow! I remember thinking about all these things and how it all interrelates and we are all caught up in it and how incredibly wonderful and complicated and perfect and simple it all was. I even seemed to have it kinda figured out. And all this happened between sets at the Fillmore West in 1970 flying through space on a couple hits of windowpane.

[ubaru]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson's revelation on the subject of science and spirit:

[podfish]

Wow! I remember thinking about all these things and how it all interrelates and we are all caught up in it and how incredibly wonderful and complicated and perfect and simple it all was. I even seemed to have it kinda figured out. And all this happened between sets at the Fillmore West in 1970 flying through space on a couple hits of windowpane.

I hope you don't think that discredits the insight...

[CSummer]

I'm a bit puzzled by your analogy, Jim: that believing in God is like believing some music is beautiful. It seems to me that music is beautiful when I experience it as such and is not a matter of belief. To reword a familiar saying, beauty is in the being (body-mind) of the experiencer. It is what one author terms our "unarguable truth." If I'm coming out of a concert and say, "That was really beautiful music!" and someone else says, "I've heard better," my inner experience need not be invalidated. Indeed, I might just feel sad that the other person didn't have the experience I had.

If you say "I believe in God," my response might be - okay, but that doesn't really tell me anything about what's true for you. It sounds to me like (with so many others I've known) you've just bought into some mind-created conception of a divine or universal being that's been labeled "God." I might ask, what is this "God" you believe in and why do you feel the need for this belief?

You wrote: "And if I explain to someone that I experience a felt transcendental presence at times, a kind of grace permeating all of existence, and someone tells me that's nonsense, there's not much I can say in response. On the other hand, I don't feel a strong need to do so, just as I don't feel compelled to prove that some music is beautiful."

Exactly! Because in both cases, your experience is your experience - and your unarguable truth. If someone wants to discount or invalidate your experience, you can let that be their problem. If you say, though, that this experience supports my belief in God, then it seems you've entered into the realm of debatable statements and are trying to fit your experience into a mental construct. To me, to say that I experienced "God" is to label the experience, and other minds will run off in all directions - from awe to doubt - rather than simply hearing and perhaps seeking to imagine what you experienced.

And now I realize there's a similar problem with saying a certain work of art is beautiful as it comes across as a judgment, implying that others should experience it as such. If instead I say I was transported into bliss by the music, I don't imply that others should have the same experience I did.

The point is that if we can stay with our experience without labeling it and trying to fit it into some mental construct, then we can avoid the downfall of religions that attempt to put minds into lockstep with their dogma. We can instead share our own - and appreciate everyone else's - experiences, and by so doing create an ever-expanding hologram made up of many perspectives. We grow toward wholeness and enlightenment instead of being stuck within the confines of inevitably limited belief systems.

Instead of asking if someone believes in God, we can ask: what is your experience of life and the world/universe and how are you making sense of that? What do these experiences seem to be teaching you? And by opening ourselves to hearing others' experiences (ideally shared without interpretation), our own picture of life and "reality" expands and deepens.

Beyond belief there is a greater potential for learning, growth, healing and enlightenment.

Clint Summer

A few thoughts from a theist:

There are really excellent works, both modern and ancient, that illuminate the case for the existence of God. I've spent a lot of time reading them. I still think Plotinus might have done one of the best jobs; but he's a difficult read.

Personally, I don't think that the existence of God can be proved in the sense of a mathematical proof. One can, I think, present something like a 'good case', but those who don't agree also have their 'good case'.

Believing in God is, I think, more like believing that some music is beautiful than it is relying on a proof. If I think a particular piece of music is beautiful, and someone else denies it, and then tells me to prove the music is beautiful, well I don't think the beautiful is agreeable to that kind of questioning. (Which, incidentally, is one reason why I like Plotinus, because he equates The One, or God, with the beautiful.) And if I explain to someone that I experience a felt transcendental presence at times, a kind of grace permeating all of existence, and someone tells me that's nonsense, there's not much I can say in response. On the other hand, I don't feel a strong need to do so, just as I don't feel compelled to prove that some music is beautiful.

Jim

[Sara S]

This is from Ken McLeod's "Unfettered Mind-Pragmatic Buddhism" Practice Tips (email):

Question

In the past, you've talked about three practice doors, impermanence, compassion, and faith. How do you practice faith, and how does it lead to insight?

Response

"When the time comes to enter the darkness in which we are naked and helpless and alone; in which we see the insufficiency of our greatest strength and the hollowness of our strongest virtues; in which we have nothing of our own to rely on, and nothing in our nature to support us, and nothing in the world to guide us or give us light -- then we find out if we live by faith."
-- Thomas Merton, The New Seeds of Contemplation

This quotation from Thomas Merton is a compelling and inspiring description of faith and the conditions in which faith comes into play. It is a description, but people tend to take such descriptions as instruction, and that lands them in trouble.

How do you practice faith?

First, don't think about faith.

Instead, when you encounter difficult experiences, externally or internally, or, if you are really fortunate, both together, face what you are experiencing. Meet it squarely. Open to everything that is happening, inside and out. Stories will run, of course. Let them run, leaves flying in the wind, wild horses galloping on the prairie.

Whenever you get lost in the stories, and you will, come back to what you are experiencing -- everything, sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, what is happening in your body, what you are feeling, what you are thinking.

Open and go to where thinking stops. Not because you have an explanation -- that is just belief.

Go to where thinking stops because what you experience is so intense that thinking just stops.

You may not know what you are experiencing.

That's not a problem. Names are often more of a problem.

You don't have to name something in order to experience it.

You feel naked, helpless and alone, yes, but those are feelings, not facts. If you believe these feelings, attention and awareness close down. You are quickly trapped in a fixed identity, a fixed notion of who you are and what is happening.

In the same way, insufficiency and hollowness are feelings, not facts.

Here you are assailed by every conceivable demon, and more than a few that you never conceived of or imagined.

That is how it is.

Just don't make a story out of it.

If you have any sense of accomplishment or success, you are on the wrong track. Ditto for failure.

Yes, it feels like you have nothing to rely on. That doesn't mean you have nothing to rely on.

Yes, it feels as if there is nothing in your nature to support you. What would you expect when you enter unknown territory, going further into what you are than you ever have before?

Yes, you feel that there is nothing in the world to guide you or shed light, but that, too, is a story.

There may be no guide, no light, no reference of any kind, but you aren't unconscious, are you?

You are, in fact, vividly aware -- aware of nothing!

That is the practice of faith, and in that moment faith is the last thing in your mind.

And don't pat yourself on the back for living by faith. That is just another story.


Quotation

A way that becomes the way is not the way.
A name that becomes the name is not the name.
-- Lao Tzu

All the best,

Ken

For all we know, there could be something ...

[Jim Wilson]

Good Morning Clint:

I'm not convinced that labelling our experience is a problem. If I see a rose and call it a 'rose' I don't see that as a difficulty. Similarly, I don't see why I should be reluctant to label my sense of a transcendental presence of kindness and love as 'God'. It's true that people might misunderstand what I mean by the word, that others may mean something different. But we can discuss that.

I understand your aversion to dogma and systems of theology. I would offer, however, that there is theology and there is theology. There is, for example, a stream of mystical theology which can be liberating just in the reading of it. Karen Armstrong has spoken of how her heart has opened and she has felt closer to the divine when contemplating a religious text. So the two are not necessarily exclusive. It depends on how you approach a written work.

I think of theology as akin to music theory. Music theory is an attempt at a descriptive understanding of why music works the way it does. Theology has a similar role to play in relation to our experience of the divine. As long as we understand that theology is subservient to the experience of the transcendent, it's not a problem and can even be of some assistance.

Jim

[jbox]

I hope you don't think that discredits the insight...

Not at all, podfish. Quite honestly, some pretty deep thinking can occur when the mind expands and focuses. Alot of us wouldn't be the people we are today without the view through the windowpane. I'm all the wiser for it...

[tezor]

Not at all, podfish. Quite honestly, some pretty deep thinking can occur when the mind expands and focuses. Alot of us wouldn't be the people we are today without the view through the windowpane. I'm all the wiser for it...

AMEN to that! What a curious world, and it's best viewed that way, than set standards. See you on the journey.

[ronliskey]

It does seem like a rather long throw. It seems to me that there is some sort of organizing principle to the universe, but I hesitate to call it God. I prefer mystery...

I'm not particularly atheist, so maybe I'm missing something, but why does being an atheist require believing:

1) "there was once absolutely nothing"
2) "nothing happened to nothing"
3) "nothing magically exploded (for no reason) creating everything and everywhere"
4) "a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself"
etc.

The quote is funny, but it has nothing to do with atheism. Those all seem like poorly worded factoids from the old big bang theory. That's physics, not atheism, and a theory not a belief.

To critique atheism, I think we should start with a fair description of that particular faith, i.e., the faith that X is not, and the faith that naming something doesn't make it true--both very hard to prove.

[gardenmaniac]

or to quote Caral Sagan, “Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence”.

I'm not particularly atheist, so maybe I'm missing something, but why does being an atheist require believing:

1) "there was once absolutely nothing"
2) "nothing happened to nothing"
3) "nothing magically exploded (for no reason) creating everything and everywhere"
4) "a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself"
etc.

The quote is funny, but it has nothing to do with atheism. Those all seem like poorly worded factoids from the old big bang theory. That's physics, not atheism, and a theory not a belief.

To critique atheism, I think we should start with a fair description of that particular faith, i.e., the faith that X is not, and the faith that naming something doesn't make it true--both very hard to prove.