Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Religion for Athiests
102 Answers
In his new book of this title (Hamish Hamilton), Alain de Botton writes that 'atheism should not hector people about the error of super-natural belief: this is "boring". The real task is to recycle elements of religion for secular use. These elements must be "dislodged from the supernatural structure within which they were first conceived" It is not just ideas that must be dislodged, but the practices that ground them. We need ways of reminding ourselves of our ideals and frailties. All of culture should serve this end.'
He implies that this must be done in a spirit of emotionally intelligent playfulness, only by such methods can we rebuild from the ruins of religion.
Is this approach worthy of consideration, or should religious observance remain within inherited, authoritative traditions?
He implies that this must be done in a spirit of emotionally intelligent playfulness, only by such methods can we rebuild from the ruins of religion.
Is this approach worthy of consideration, or should religious observance remain within inherited, authoritative traditions?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro,
The dualist argues that thoughts and emotions can’t be measured and thus must be something quite other than matter. The materialist will have to agree about the measurement, but will respond that in our experience we have never observed thought and emotion in the absence of matter. Further, why can’t these “spiritual” aspects of our nature not be “just” another extraordinary outcome of the material world? The “quite other” thing of the dualist may very well exist, but how can we possibly know this? How is this “explanation” of spirituality in its general (i.e. no-religious) meaning any different from the invention of Thor to explain thunder?
Haven't just seen your latest post, Occam's razor favours the simpler materialist thesis.
You'll have to forgive me, I can't resist my devilish impulses, Khandro: Islamic scientists? Didn't they die out with Avicenna?
The dualist argues that thoughts and emotions can’t be measured and thus must be something quite other than matter. The materialist will have to agree about the measurement, but will respond that in our experience we have never observed thought and emotion in the absence of matter. Further, why can’t these “spiritual” aspects of our nature not be “just” another extraordinary outcome of the material world? The “quite other” thing of the dualist may very well exist, but how can we possibly know this? How is this “explanation” of spirituality in its general (i.e. no-religious) meaning any different from the invention of Thor to explain thunder?
Haven't just seen your latest post, Occam's razor favours the simpler materialist thesis.
You'll have to forgive me, I can't resist my devilish impulses, Khandro: Islamic scientists? Didn't they die out with Avicenna?
//The dualist argues that thoughts and emotions can’t be measured and thus must be something quite other than matter. The materialist will have to agree about the measurement, but will respond that in our experience we have never observed thought and emotion in the absence of matter.//
Thoughts can be measured objectively according to their correspondence to reality. Emotions provide us automatic summations of our cognitive experiences based on our beliefs and these vary in intensity and can be measured in relationship to greater or lesser feelings ranging from indifference to a value one perceives as worth dying for . . . assuming one can appreciate the difference between living and dying.
Thoughts can be measured objectively according to their correspondence to reality. Emotions provide us automatic summations of our cognitive experiences based on our beliefs and these vary in intensity and can be measured in relationship to greater or lesser feelings ranging from indifference to a value one perceives as worth dying for . . . assuming one can appreciate the difference between living and dying.
Khandro, //naomi; I have used the word soul in quotation marks, you introduced it, .//
So have I – and I didn’t introduce it – Jom did, but you didn’t object then. I use the word only for want of something more appropriate – although what that might be I have no idea. What would you call it?
//I am talking about mind having non-physical aspects.//
I know what you’re talking about – but since I believe thoughts, emotions, etc, etc, are energy-related, and I don’t believe that anything is ‘supernatural’, I think it unlikely.
How do you think the thoughts produced by such a mind as you describe are generated if not by physical means?
So have I – and I didn’t introduce it – Jom did, but you didn’t object then. I use the word only for want of something more appropriate – although what that might be I have no idea. What would you call it?
//I am talking about mind having non-physical aspects.//
I know what you’re talking about – but since I believe thoughts, emotions, etc, etc, are energy-related, and I don’t believe that anything is ‘supernatural’, I think it unlikely.
How do you think the thoughts produced by such a mind as you describe are generated if not by physical means?
"How do you think the thoughts produced by such a mind as you describe are generated if not by physical means?" If I knew the answer to that naomi, I would be heading for Stockholm to collect my Nobel prize, but there again, so would the person who could prove the opposite.
Put simply, I cannot accept the notion of a blind purposeless, mechanical Universe. I believe in a spirit of life, I believe in the unknowable, why? - because I feel it right there in my heart. C'est tout!
Put simply, I cannot accept the notion of a blind purposeless, mechanical Universe. I believe in a spirit of life, I believe in the unknowable, why? - because I feel it right there in my heart. C'est tout!
Khandro, I understand that, and I think many people believe similarly, but what I don’t understand is why you refuse to consider the possibility that you may be experiencing this as a result of man’s innate physical make-up – albeit an aspect of man’s innate physical make-up that we don’t yet understand . Rather than simply attributing it to just one of the many facets of our natural physiology, why insist that its causes are ‘supernatural’ ? I can only assume that despite the complete lack of solid evidence for the ‘supernatural’, you WANT to believe it – so you do – and that is why you cannot accept the notion of a ‘blind purposeless, mechanical Universe’. In relation to man, who, in my opinion, in universal terms, really isn’t as important as he seems to assume he is, I don’t know what purpose you think the universe has, and I’ve no idea what purpose you think our existence, either in life or in an afterlife, serves, so I would like you to explain that please - if you don’t mind.
From my own point of view, I cannot simply accept weird and wonderful imaginings. I want answers – real answers – and real answers are not to be found in either guessing, or in attributing the unknown to the unknown.
(Fascinating discussion, by the way. Great stuff!).
From my own point of view, I cannot simply accept weird and wonderful imaginings. I want answers – real answers – and real answers are not to be found in either guessing, or in attributing the unknown to the unknown.
(Fascinating discussion, by the way. Great stuff!).
jomifl; Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? You state, "you believe in ignorance and irrationality". This is Unfair, untrue, and below the belt; whereas I most certainly do not believe in ignorance, I believe wholeheartedly in irrationality, without which there can be no truly creative revelation. I'm with Nietzsche when he says 'Art is the supreme task and the truly metaphysical activity of this life'. - A glorious sweeping statement to make the heart soar! He goes on to say 'We shall have gained much for the science* of aesthetics when we have succeeded in perceiving directly, and not only through logical reasoning, that art derives it's continuous development from the Appoline and Dionysiac.'
I believe this to be true in all areas of human activity; most of the truly important life-changing steps I have taken in my life seemed to have been 'irrational'!
*In German, Nietzsche uses the word 'Wissenschaft' which means any systematic investigation, and not what is meant by 'science' in English. (this should be remembered in reading any work translated from German).
naomi; I'll get back to you.
I believe this to be true in all areas of human activity; most of the truly important life-changing steps I have taken in my life seemed to have been 'irrational'!
*In German, Nietzsche uses the word 'Wissenschaft' which means any systematic investigation, and not what is meant by 'science' in English. (this should be remembered in reading any work translated from German).
naomi; I'll get back to you.
I have a slight affection for Nietzsche having read Twilight of the Idols as a kid and learning later that he was committed to a lunatic asylum for attacking a man who was flogging a horse. But I’ll have to check his quote about Apollo and Dionysus. They are are usually regarded as antithetical concepts. Maybe he was saying that Art depends on Reason AND frenzy.(sorry – cross that out) Divine Exuberance. Where does it come from, Khandro.
jomifl; "it would be nice if he constructed his own sentences based on his own thoughts." I think you are being rather silly. Less than 50 words in the above post are by Nietzsche, they all are attributed, and are the basis of the submission.
The rest, for better or worse, is by yours truly. Why does this give you a problem?
The rest, for better or worse, is by yours truly. Why does this give you a problem?
