Purpose of non-observed religion

[William Rea]

But hold on what I claim of God can be demonstrated to you, you reject it for a simpler explanation, that doesn't change what is true in the objective reality, we both hold different perceptions of the same reality. You can claim your is better because it's simpler but until I make a claim outside our shared reality it is not anything but a different simpler subjective perception. Both are anchored by reality equality.

That is why I suggest one needs to measure the impacts of the perception lest all we are arguing is semantics.

I share the same view. We are equal position of unknowing in my view - I am not claiming superiority even though yes people on both sides of the debate do (and more so on my side)

Produce your anchor.

 

[MrWonka]

What do you see as the modern day replacement for these beliefs?

Simple logic will suffice. Whether you realize it or not all your religious moral laws were based upon logic at one point or another. ****ty logic in many cases, but logic none the less.

Which philosophies?

I don't know that there is a specific philosophy, but generally in morality we start with asking ourselves what should people be allowed to do, and the most basic answer is...... "People should have the right to live their lives however they choose so long is that in doing so they do not interfere with or put at unreasonable risk the exact same right of someone else."

Now obviously the question becomes what is an unreasonable risk, and what constitutes interference. Well unfortunately that can change depending on the day an age, and in today's day and age with rising populations and advancing technologies there are likely far more limits than there was a hundred years or more ago, but that is still the essential question we're trying to ask.

What community structures?

None come to mind that are really necessary.

 

[Conaeolos]

But hold on what I claim of God can be demonstrated to you, you reject it for a simpler explanation, that doesn't change what is true in the objective reality, we both hold different perceptions of the same reality. You can claim your is better because it's simpler but until I make a claim outside our shared reality it is not anything but a different simpler subjective perception. Both are anchored by reality equality.

That is why I suggest one needs to measure the impacts of the perception lest all we are arguing is semantics.

I share the same view. We are equal position of unknowing in my view - I am not claiming superiority even though yes people on both sides of the debate do (and more so on my side)

I respect your doubt and position but you are forcing this into a circular trap. It's the same anchor you use, you have a simpler explanation: the universe is nothing but matter and it's movement and modification. I have a slightly more complex explanation: the physical universe is matter but exists within a larger spiritual universe the implication of which is there are two forms two reality: eternal (consciousness) and the material (matter).

This can not be rectified since we don't understand consciousness.

Despite this, we both accept the agnostic challenge: it is unknowable. We both despite that caveat stake a position as the best explanation of objective reality: you the material and me the two forms. Seeing as how there is no way to different the difference until materialism can define consciousness - it's subjective. A scenario similar to the uncertainty principle.

This is why we need to compare the implications on the complex systems in question, the influence of two valid perceptional differences(our last point of agreement/the anchor). If the implications are null or negative as devildavid suggests you have a point in dismissing the claim; otherwise, you merely have yours is the simpler which can often satisfy reason except consciousness and human behaviour are infinitely complex systems and consciousness has not been replicated not even close.

And even if it was it still begs the question: do the conditions of consciousness create it or allow it emerge out.

 

[Conaeolos]

Produce your anchor.

See above quoted my post by accident :lol:

 

[Angel]

Wider, faster, deeper dissemination of knowledge is what occurred.
First through books, ramping up through radio, TV, and now the fastest to date, the internet. Since we're all connected and all data is available (relatively), I think that trend will continue but likely wouldn't see big variations in the rate of change as you saw back then.

You seem to be talking about information here, Mach. Isn't there a distinction to be drawn between information and knowledge?

 

[William Rea]

I respect your doubt and position but you are forcing this into a circular trap. It's the same anchor you use, you have a simpler explanation: the universe is nothing but matter and it's movement and modification. I have a slightly more complex explanation: the physical universe is matter but exists within a larger spiritual universe the implication of which is there are two forms two reality: eternal (consciousness) and the material (matter).

This can not be rectified since we don't understand consciousness.

Despite this, we both accept the agnostic challenge: it is unknowable. We both despite that caveat stake a position as the best explanation of objective reality: you the material and me the two forms. Seeing as how there is no way to different the difference until materialism can define consciousness - it's subjective. A scenario similar to the uncertainty principle.

This is why we need to compare the implications on the complex systems in question, the influence of two valid perceptional differences(our last point of agreement/the anchor). If the implications are null or negative as devildavid suggests you have a point in dismissing the claim; otherwise, you merely have yours is the simpler which can often satisfy reason except consciousness and human behaviour are infinitely complex systems and consciousness has not been replicated not even close.

And even if it was it still begs the question: do the conditions of consciousness create it or allow it emerge out.

I'm not forcing any kind of trap, just produce your anchor; if you are going to place your anchor in the realm of ignorance then you have nothing better than 'feels'.

I don't make a guess, I lack belief in assertions made without evidence. You are making a positive claim so, justify it.

 

[devildavid]

It sounds to me like you have become hypnotized by a reductionist lens and thus find yourself embracing the power of existential nihilism. There is no point in talking God or soul when you fundamentally can't even agree there is meaning in equanimity.

Equanimity is not a specific term but that does not make it meaningless. Equanimity is something I experience- what word would you have me use to describe that experience?

Remove your statements of opinion and there in emerges our point of disagreement: you assert believing or not believing god(s) does not impact your personality hence does not impact everyday behaviour. I find that a ridiculous claim as much if not more than you think my claim there is a God is absurd.

Oh course personality/behaviour is complex, of course there is genetic predispositions that influence those things based on a belief. Of course belief doesn't just magically solve the problem of evil. But if you are honestly denying core beliefs / points of faith influence lens which impact behaviour - you must have done zero contemplation or study in your life as to nature of what influences behaviour.

How could literally perceiving events differently not impact how one reacts to them?

I'm only talking about the concept god(s) specifically and only the belief in god(s). Belief in god(S), by itself, is not significant is impacting human behavior. The concept of god(s), without belief in god(s), has no impact on behavior. God is a very narrow and vague concept. The belief in god(s), by itself, is not the same as embracing a philosophy or values or a way of life. It is a belief that has no inherent value to it. God is a thing, not an event. You don't react to believing in god, you just do it.

 

[Mach]

You seem to be talking about information here, Mach. Isn't there a distinction to be drawn between information and knowledge?

Shorthand Angel. Are we going to write a 1000 page systematic work that builds up from primitives to reach the ability to claim something about the modern era digital age?
Yes, knowledge, that someone then encodes, along with the wider set of all [ information], that when read and understood may result in, knowledge.
If it was a jab that reason is not knowledge, or that religion can also be knowledge, etc., well, we have our own thread for that.

Something happened in the last half-century, something that wasn't new in kind -- there had been pockets of "freethinkers" before this period and there had been a "Lost Generation" but chiefly among artistic types -- but rather something new in degree. Your observation that "we exist in a generation quite lost in comparison both ethically and in terms of identity" rings true to these ears.

Which I agree with. And I'm offering a reasonable explanation.
People with access to great works of science and thinking of their time, often result in pockets of free thinkers. The press, then radio, TV, and now the internet, brings all such works to anyone, at any time, in nearly any palatable form imaginable. Even debate forums like this, where the religious-minded can come and have their views challenged in the open, only to find that what they have been taught is fiction, helps accelerate that. That this would result in a dramatic increase in free thinkers seems seems consistent.

That's not to say inevitable. Emotional backlashes against reason have been known to occur. And while the change over time will diminish, the new normal may be quite a bit different than 50 or 100 years ago. Hopefully, progress and all.

 

[Conaeolos]

I'm not forcing any kind of trap, just produce your anchor; if you are going to place your anchor in the realm of ignorance then you have nothing better than 'feels'.

I don't make a guess, I lack belief in assertions made without evidence. You are making a positive claim so, justify it.

I don't think your doing so on purpose, you are obviously a rational, logical and an intellectual honest person but you may have engaged in this seemingly same debate so many times you may have lost prospective. As you very much are misframing my argument. I am not in anyway trying to tell you are wrong to be skeptical or should believe my "claims" about God. I have already said you have your terms for nature based on your perceptions as I have mine. We agree on the same rules for reality. Some might label either of us agnostic but it meaningless as we both hold a position of what is more logical and useful. We are anchored to the same reality and differ only on our opinions as to the nature of reality which we both acknowledge is objective so in the end discovery about reality will always prove right the fairytales from the truth. When I talk God you call it a fairy tale that I believe, a misinterpretation of my experiences. I accept it would appear that way from other vantage points. What claim is there to disapprove in that? An untestable unknowable question?

I thus wish to only discuss meaningful dialogue not the meaningless appeals to ignorance as proof I am right and you are wrong. I will put aside my opinion and hear the many ways atheist answer the questions theists do. It what I state in my original question.

If someone however goes further and claims these fairytales / misperceptions as you call them are useless, Well then I do have a problem and hence this back and forth. These perceptions or fairytales I believe are profoundly beneficial to me and others - so that is my positive claim your welcome to be the skeptic on.

 

[Conaeolos]

I'm only talking about the concept god(s) specifically and only the belief in god(s). Belief in god(S), by itself, is not significant is impacting human behavior. The concept of god(s), without belief in god(s), has no impact on behavior. God is a very narrow and vague concept. The belief in god(s), by itself, is not the same as embracing a philosophy or values or a way of life. It is a belief that has no inherent value to it. God is a thing, not an event. You don't react to believing in god, you just do it.

Your skipping an important preceding argument: why do you claim "equanimity" is meaningless?

I agree belief in god can seem like a silly thing. I disagree that believing it doesn't impact behaviours. Unless though you explain why my experiences of equanimity or love (and that of others and yourself) are meaningless. How can I utilize those to show meaning in belief in god(s) as both are abstract vague terms obviously related to questions of utility.

Thus if equanimity and love are meaningless then of course belief in god would be meaningless as belief of any types meaning is causely-connected to such vague concepts and so the whole thing rests on that disagreement. Literally nothing not entirely objective would be meaningful in your position. I reject that full stop! Meaning is measurable only as defined by experience of positive verses negative experiences: psychological impact.

 

[devildavid]

Your skipping an important preceding argument: why do you claim "equanimity" is meaningless?

I agree belief in god can seem like a silly thing. I disagree that believing it doesn't impact behaviours. Unless though you explain why my experiences of equanimity or love (and that of others and yourself) are meaningless. How can I utilize those to show meaning in belief in god(s) as both are abstract vague terms obviously related to questions of utility.

Thus if equanimity and love are meaningless then of course belief in god would be meaningless as belief of any types meaning is causely-connected to such vague concepts and so the whole thing rests on that disagreement. Literally nothing not entirely objective would be meaningful in your position. I reject that full stop! Meaning is measurable only as defined by experience of positive verses negative experiences: psychological impact.

Equanimity is all in your mind. There is no outward expression of it. There are outward expressions of what we call love. But both things are bound up in human emotion and yes, emotions are real. It is the significance we attach to these emotions that sometimes goes too far. I can say I love humanity but what does it really mean? I can say I have peace of mind but what does it really mean? It means I feel something and interpret it into something so subjective as to be meaningless to anyone but me. Emotions are useful in human society, but they can also become illusions when we misinterpret them. I can be offended by a woman and then project hatred against all women. Is that hatred real? Is it spiritual? Or is it an illusion caused by human emotion?

 

[Conaeolos]

Equanimity is all in your mind. There is no outward expression of it. There are outward expressions of what we call love. But both things are bound up in human emotion and yes, emotions are real. It is the significance we attach to these emotions that sometimes goes too far. I can say I love humanity but what does it really mean? I can say I have peace of mind but what does it really mean? It means I feel something and interpret it into something so subjective as to be meaningless to anyone but me. Emotions are useful in human society, but they can also become illusions when we misinterpret them. I can be offended by a woman and then project hatred against all women. Is that hatred real? Is it spiritual? Or is it an illusion caused by human emotion?

We have a lot to agree on in that. The only point I really would dispute is what you describe is meaningless. I agree however they are vague and subjective like spirituality and religion.

As an example, the fact I feel I have peace of mind. Describing that to a skeptic may well be meaningless in many contexts. What do they after all care how I feel? The same sentiment expressed about my faith in spirituality. In that context yes I agree it's meaningless.

In the context though of dealing with angry teenagers (a common experience for me btw) it has a great deal of relevance and thus meaning. They do very much care how I feel. They very much do care how I am able to do the things I attribute to my peace of mind. In that context it is very meaningful.

Misinterpreting this feeling is almost a certainty but that is not to say all misinterpretations are created equal in utility. It very much matters if my interpretation can be of use in the context it is applied.

In your example, it matters very much if such feelings of misogyny are causing discord. And me someone without misogyny helping that person it matters very much in the process of them coming to terms with those negative feelings.

Religion works on the same principle. In a lab or unrelated debate there would be little reason to ever express my beliefs except to help others in understanding my personal reasoning for my opinions. This is similar to how in science one must express their assumptions.

When challenging those assumptions though it is important to contrast them not simply dismiss them if dismissing them changes outcomes. In the cause of religion we see it impacting feelings/emotions which in turn impacts behaviour. It matters then in productive discussions what you replace this faith with. This goes back to my original question. I accept atheism can successfully replace these assumptions (in some cases and not in others) but am unclear on with what successfully and what unsuccessfully. That is important in understanding and forming an understanding.

Does my position make more sense like that? And why my justification relays on how it impacts ones feelings and perceptions.

 

[devildavid]

We have a lot to agree on in that. The only point I really would dispute is what you describe is meaningless. I agree however they are vague and subjective like spirituality and religion.

As an example, the fact I feel I have peace of mind. Describing that to a skeptic may well be meaningless in many contexts. What do they after all care how I feel? The same sentiment expressed about my faith in spirituality. In that context yes I agree it's meaningless.

In the context though of dealing with angry teenagers (a common experience for me btw) it has a great deal of relevance and thus meaning. They do very much care how I feel. They very much do care how I am able to do the things I attribute to my peace of mind. In that context it is very meaningful.

Misinterpreting this feeling is almost a certainty but that is not to say all misinterpretations are created equal in utility. It very much matters if my interpretation can be of use in the context it is applied.

In your example, it matters very much if such feelings of misogyny are causing discord. And me someone without misogyny helping that person it matters very much in the process of them coming to terms with those negative feelings.

Religion works on the same principle. In a lab or unrelated debate there would be little reason to ever express my beliefs except to help others in understanding my personal reasoning for my opinions. This is similar to how in science one must express their assumptions.

When challenging those assumptions though it is important to contrast them not simply dismiss them if dismissing them changes outcomes. In the cause of religion we see it impacting feelings/emotions which in turn impacts behaviour. It matters then in productive discussions what you replace this faith with. This goes back to my original question. I accept atheism can successfully replace these assumptions (in some cases and not in others) but am unclear on with what successfully and what unsuccessfully. That is important in understanding and forming an understanding.

Does my position make more sense like that? And why my justification relays on how it impacts ones feelings and perceptions.

We kind of got off track in the discussion of god as a spiritual tenet. God alone does not equal religion or a value system. God is simply the idea of a higher entity, whatever higher might mean. But it carries nor moral value with it because it all depends on the what the individual thinks god is. And there can't possible be an agreed upon definition or meaning assigned to god.

I can say that without the sun plant life will not grow on the earth and get reasonable agreement on that assertion. But what can we possibly agree on in regards to god? Does the concept of god alone really carry any meaning or is it just a metaphor used for whatever purpose we want? The word god carries a lot of baggage and actually leads to more confusion than agreement. Much of the dispute is over whether or not god is literally real. Does it make a difference?

 

[Conaeolos]

But it carries nor moral value with it because it all depends on the what the individual thinks god is. And there can't possible be an agreed upon definition or meaning assigned to god.

No it true, we project what our senses don’t tell us. It’s human nature, yet even this simple idea still has a notable effects on ones psychology as it changes perceptions of many situations, perception dictates cognition, cognition dictates choices, choices combine with environment to feedback into emotion, emotion influences original perception. This creates both an immediate effect and a trending effect.

I can say that without the sun plant life will not grow on the earth and get reasonable agreement on that assertion. But what can we possibly agree on in regards to god?

I think we should be able to agree that belief in the concept impacts people’s perceptions, more specifically of themselves, their place in the universe, their purpose in the universe and their need to take moral actions.

Does the concept of god alone really carry any meaning or is it just a metaphor used for whatever purpose we want?

I think if either you or I are proved right, we can agree that someone’s “belief of God” is shaped by their emotional feelings on the nature of world. If for example they feel passed over, they will picture any God as denying, whether the God I argue for exists or whether its just a image created in their brain.

The word god carries a lot of baggage and actually leads to more confusion than agreement.

Agreed

Much of the dispute is over whether or not god is literally real. Does it make a difference?

I am tempted to say no, yet I find myself often having to talk about what is real about God (mostly to theists/agnostics). Maybe that’s just my life choices lol but it has gotten to the point I feel it does…I will say in general I am respectful of self-declared atheists and their insights although think many are stuck in pride(to their own limitation), but hope everyone lives a happy and full life true in whatever they see as reality without feeling social pressure to conform to any concepts they find dumb[like many atheist must in non-westren places, in certian families or some parts of the states]. And unless its a belief causing some discomfort or discord I really don't see the issue, as it either is or is not, but as long as it matters to people - I'm going to go with yes becuase how people feel and being their best selves matters, and God, whatever nature he may take or whatever that means seems to help with that.

 

[devildavid]

No it true, we project what our senses don’t tell us. It’s human nature, yet even this simple idea still has a notable effects on ones psychology as it changes perceptions of many situations, perception dictates cognition, cognition dictates choices, choices combine with environment to feedback into emotion, emotion influences original perception. This creates both an immediate effect and a trending effect.


I think we should be able to agree that belief in the concept impacts people’s perceptions, more specifically of themselves, their place in the universe, their purpose in the universe and their need to take moral actions.


I think if either you or I are proved right, we can agree that someone’s “belief of God” is shaped by their emotional feelings on the nature of world. If for example they feel passed over, they will picture any God as denying, whether the God I argue for exists or whether its just a image created in their brain.


Agreed


I am tempted to say no, yet I find myself often having to talk about what is real about God (mostly to theists/agnostics). Maybe that’s just my life choices lol but it has gotten to the point I feel it does…I will say in general I am respectful of self-declared atheists and their insights although think many are stuck in pride(to their own limitation), but hope everyone lives a happy and full life true in whatever they see as reality without feeling social pressure to conform to any concepts they find dumb[like many atheist must in non-westren places, in certian families or some parts of the states]. And unless its a belief causing some discomfort or discord I really don't see the issue, as it either is or is not, but as long as it matters to people - I'm going to go with yes becuase how people feel and being their best selves matters, and God, whatever nature he may take or whatever that means seems to help with that.

I see it quite the opposite from you. I observe that people have their own perceptions and then choose and mold their beliefs to fit in with that. The belief doesn't form the person, the person wears the belief that fits them and alters it to fit best. Otherwise they might walk around conflicted all the time because their beliefs and their personal perceptions don't match up. This is probably how many move from inherited religious belief to a newly chosen belief, their own unique belief, or to no belief at all. It appears to me that people tailor their beliefs to best fit themselves and not the other way around.

 

[Conaeolos]

I observe that people have their own perceptions and then choose and mold their beliefs to fit in with that. The belief doesn't form the person, the person wears the belief that fits them and alters it to fit best.

I follow the description but wonder how you suggest those beliefs evolve and change if not through changes in perception (the way they see a situation or the world at large)? (I am going to try and get mostly there based on the second half of your post)

Otherwise they might walk around conflicted all the time because their beliefs and their personal perceptions don't match up. This is probably how many move from inherited religious belief to a newly chosen belief, their own unique belief, or to no belief at all. It appears to me that people tailor their beliefs to best fit themselves and not the other way around.

So perception remains the same or is that influenced by something we haven’t discussed?

Then these conflicts between current or inherited beliefs conflict with perception create discomfort (which is either avoided/confronted) which eventually leads to people modifying these beliefs to better meet their perception.(?)

And the more ones beliefs conform to the perception, the more psychological healthy they become.(?)

Please offer any clarification you are able.

 

[devildavid]

I follow the description but wonder how you suggest those beliefs evolve and change if not through changes in perception (the way they see a situation or the world at large)? (I am going to try and get mostly there based on the second half of your post)


So perception remains the same or is that influenced by something we haven’t discussed?

Then these conflicts between current or inherited beliefs conflict with perception create discomfort (which is either avoided/confronted) which eventually leads to people modifying these beliefs to better meet their perception.(?)

And the more ones beliefs conform to the perception, the more psychological healthy they become.(?)

Please offer any clarification you are able.

Yes, our perception remains largely the same, based on who we are as a person. But it also depends on our experience as well. The more we age and observe life the more we learn about the world and ourselves. If our beliefs conform to those informed perceptions, we may continue with them. If our beliefs were not created by our perceptions but handed down to us, we may start to question them. In general we all seek out what makes us most comfortable and less distressed. All this is based on our individual psychological makeup which largely determines how we perceive life.

 

[Conaeolos]

In general we all seek out what makes us most comfortable and less distressed.

I realize this may seem a bit of tanget(but it relates to my orginal question), but depression and anxiety are now very commonly reported in the west. Do you think that because a lot of epople have a very limited ability to find what is comfortable and remove that distress?

 

[Angel]

I realize this may seem a bit of tanget(but it relates to my orginal question), but depression and anxiety are now very commonly reported in the west. Do you think that because a lot of epople have a very limited ability to find what is comfortable and remove that distress?

Excellent question, brother. This secular age of ours will doubtless be labeled the Age of Anxiety in future history books.

 

[devildavid]

I realize this may seem a bit of tanget(but it relates to my orginal question), but depression and anxiety are now very commonly reported in the west. Do you think that because a lot of epople have a very limited ability to find what is comfortable and remove that distress?

It has been this way forever. It is only now that we are medically advanced enough to recognize and report it.