Religion As The Opiate Of The People

[scameter]

To me, spirituality and religion are all simply stories, lessons, and sessions to make one feel better; to uplife one spiritually. It's almost like a spiritual money, making one feel more secure that after death if they follow a certain set of rules they will be happy and that during life, if they follow those same rules, they can feel better about life and themselves, as if it had meaning. I find this to be all that religion and spirituality are. How can it be none with entire, 100% certainty that God or a spirituality exists? It can't. And yes, speculatively, nothing can be known entirely, but reality is reality, and it is all we have; and to imply spirituality is to imply it in this reality, thus to not see anything of it here makes it unreal. It is simply the opiate of the people, a therapy session. And the actual philosophy of most religions has been so disassembled by the people running the religion that they simply tie into the therapy, not as an actual philosophical lesson of life of wisdom. I do believe, however, the God and spirituality exist, just as much as anything else in the mind of humanity. And with no scrutiny; I believe everything we believe in exists in our minds.

[lenin32]

I couldnt have said it better myself scameter. People simply want to feel that there is some purpose to exist. I dont think anyone likes the idea of blind dumb energy being all there is.

Another topic that this brings to mind is politics. I find it amzingly funny that we as americans consider democracy to be the best possible government, but claim that nature is ruled by a dictator. (Sorry for getting off topic though :rolleyes: )

[scameter]

Tis fine. And I see what you mean. But, we're not actually a democracy; we're a democratic republic politically, and the country actually is mostly capitalist. But, something that I have recently contemplated and realized is is that magic and spirituality and such does not exist physically, but it does indeed exist; everything in the human mind exists, from God, to magic, to meaning, to everything else. And, unfortunately, people should not be depressed of this fact. Actually, this should make them proud to have a human mind. It certainly makes me proud. The combination of imagination and belief makes such a wonderful aspect of the human species. :)

[MidnightSun]

I love religion.

[TruthSeeker]

I dislike religion. But love spirituality... :tao:

[scameter]

And simply by having an opinion on it, both of you are simply affirming what I say: religion exists, all religions, as does spirituality, within the mind; and it existing there by no means discounts it's relevence or potency. Actually, it magnifies it.

[scameter]

As a note, I would like to discount what I said in the original post about thinking that spirituality does not exist, only reality, and that if something cannot be seen in reality that it does not exist; for I do not believe this to be true. Reality is simply a perception; whether it is perceived in a similar way between many people is entirely irrelevent, for this is simply apart of an individual's perception as well. I believe the mind to be much more than what we think, especially beyond mere chemicals. I believe the mind to have a potency beyond it's physical, chemical container, and not simply how we use it through action in our hands; I mean cosmically, spiritually, and eventfully. I believe that our mind has an actual place and affect in reality and on reality, and is something celestial it's self.

[Kether]

I believe the mind to be much more than what we think, especially beyond mere chemicals. I believe the mind to have a potency beyond it's physical, chemical container
The mind has great potency, because it is what we are; our minds are the only things ultimate to us. But in terms of reality, sentience and existence as a subject are no more than a mirage produced by the chemical brain.
Everything in the human mind exists, from God, to magic, to meaning, to everything else.
Well, that is your definition of 'exist'; rather an odd one in my opinion. However, I won't muck about with semantics, since I cannot 'disprove' your use of a word - what I will say is that your assertion is an unhelpful one. The common definition of 'exist' refers to something 'real' in a physical, or perhaps a spiritual, sense - but not a mental sense. Does something we dream about exist? Most people would say no.
Nevertheless, I can see where you're coming from with this - we perceive and interpret the world through symbols. But these are not 'real' in the conventional sense, and I do not believe it fruitful to think of them as such - we should be prepared to drop them if they are disproved by another symbolic complex, one that corresponds well to the physical, empirically observable reality. No doubt you will counter that our empirical observation is jaundiced by our minds; it is possible that that is the case, and we have no way of finding evidence one way or another with such a question, for obvious reasons; but if it is, at least it is a good, consistent illusion - it is the same for all individuals, and does not contradict itself. So the empirical reality is a useful thing to refer to when determining the 'truth' of our mental constructs.

[MidnightSun]

Reality is simply a perception

Yup :)

[scameter]

:) Thanks Kether, you entirely affirmed what I said. And, as a note, I'm actually not coming from where you said I am, from symbols.

[Kether]

:) I see. Then you think that reality is not perceived by our senses, but created by it? I've heard you say this before, but I don't know if it is what you truly believe.

[scameter]

I have said it before, but before, I was speaking as if that is what the Buddhists believe, not what I myself believe. But, I think our mind creates reality; even if our senses do things such as touch it and hear it and smell it, those sensual receptions simply carry into our mind and are translated there, rendering the senses entirely up to the discrimination of the mind. The mind is much more potent than people think, especially scientists.

[MidnightSun]

Sounds like matrix :P

[Kether]

The senses are self-evidently controlled by the 'mind', ie the nervous system. But this does not make them entirely at the mercy of conceptualisations: observation is, for all intents and purposes, objective. Of course we cannot know the Ultimate Reality, because it is, by definition, not perceived; but our senses seem to be a fairly accurate model of it. And even if they don't, at least our basic perceptions show a consistent, reliable and extremely convincing reality, which is - most importantly - not warped by our opinions, our high-level beliefs. Yes, the mind is potent, but it still cannot escape 'evidence' of the 'reality'.

[scameter]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; this is why I said what I did about science that you translated into religion over science, inaccurately. Science describes what it perceives sensually, and dismisses all else it cannot see but that others may have claimed to see as unreal. This is why science is limited, but it is as it is I suppose, and honestly so at that; it is simply unfortunate that most scientists cannot see this. Observations are entirely subjective, how could they not be? We perceive them from our subjective senses, and thus they are subjective themselves. Perhaps my definition of "objective" and "subjective" are different than yours.

[Kether]

Possibly. I don't consider it helpful to think of our senses as subjective, even if they are not the Ultimate Reality: for all intents and purposes, we can think of the world we perceive as 'true'. 'Subjective' seems to me to imply that our high-level conceptualisations, what you would call 'beliefs', affect our senses and our basic cognition. I do not agree with this. They affect the interpretation of perceptions, and fill in the enormous gaps in our immediate knowledge, but our senses can still be called 'objective' because they are, in a sense, impersonal and beyond our control.
Science describes what it perceives sensually, and dismisses all else it cannot see but that others may have claimed to see as unreal. This is why science is limited, but it is as it is I suppose, and honestly so at that; it is simply unfortunate that most scientists cannot see this.
Science does not dismiss what it cannot see as untrue; it tries to entertain notions with a degree of certainty that corresponds to the amount of evidence on which they are built. It does not claim, arrogantly, to 'know' things that it does not - but this does not render it incapable of speculating. One of the things I like about science is that it keeps its hypotheses in perspective, and recognises that they're just that - hypotheses - until there is evidence to support them.

[scameter]

for all intents and purposes, we can think of the world we perceive as 'true'.

I disagree; I would say "factual" rather than "true". Although, much of reality is entirely illogical, so yes, much of it does appear to bear truth.

but our senses can still be called 'objective' because they are, in a sense, impersonal and beyond our control.

Yet they are still apart of us. We cannot know how our senses are being affected, by anything; it could be just as true that this reality exists as we perceive it, or that aliens have captured all of us, or some of us, and are altering our minds and senses subsequently to make us believe certain ways, for any myriad of purposes. Anything is possible. But science cannot see this; it sees only what indeed it sensually sees, which limits it to the realm of fact.

Science does not dismiss what it cannot see as untrue; it tries to entertain notions with a degree of certainty that corresponds to the amount of evidence on which they are built.

Evidence that they perceive sensually. If they cannot perceive something sensually, for instance the spirit, they dismiss it as unreal.

One of the things I like about science is that it keeps its hypotheses in perspective, and recognises that they're just that - hypotheses - until there is evidence to support them.

I like the first part, but not the second; it relies too much on evidence, which is why I prefer natural philosophy to science.

[Kether]

You make a distinction between 'factual' and 'true'?
much of reality is entirely illogical, so yes, much of it does appear to bear truth.
When is reality entirely illogical? Could you give some examples?
Yet they are still apart of us.
Our senses are a part of us, but they are beyond the control of our ego and our conscious desires - moreover, two people receiving the same stimuli seem to experience them in the same way. So perceptions of reality are largely, if not completely, outside our control, and thus can be seen as 'objective' in a pragmatic sense of the word: they are not warped by our beliefs, making them a good standard by which to judge their validity.
We cannot know how our senses are being affected, by anything; it could be just as true that this reality exists as we perceive it, or that aliens have captured all of us, or some of us, and are altering our minds and senses subsequently to make us believe certain ways, for any myriad of purposes.
We cannot know for certain what is happening to our senses, or whether our senses are right - we can analyse how they work, neurologically, but not without their (possibly flawed) help - but what we can do is reason, in terms of probability. It is not impossible that we are all plugged into an alien experiment, to use your example, but it is improbable.
One thing I would like to mention at this point:
I reject the 'Cartesian Theatre' view of the mind, in which the consciousness sits in the middle of the brain, receiving sensory information and sending out commands. What is most likely is that the emergent 'mind' is a product of the entire nervous system, including the senses.
Anything is possible. But science cannot see this; it sees only what indeed it sensually sees, which limits it to the realm of fact...If they cannot perceive something sensually, for instance the spirit, they dismiss it as unreal.
They don't so much dismiss it as unreal as hold it to be very improbable. Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it does make a belief in a spirit less intellectually honest to hold. There is substantial evidence to the contrary, making a belief that the mind is a product of the physical far, far more probable.
Me: One of the things I like about science is that it keeps its hypotheses in perspective, and recognises that they're just that - hypotheses - until there is evidence to support them.

Scameter: I like the first part, but not the second; it relies too much on evidence, which is why I prefer natural philosophy to science.
Then what should be the criterion to judge how strongly one should believe in a hypothesis? Not keeping the strength of our views relative to the evidence that supports them leads to blind faith - an exceedingly dangerous thing, since it is liable to turn dogmatic.

[lenin32]

Just to throw this out there:

The United states of america is actually a federal republic

[scameter]

When is reality entirely illogical? Could you give some examples?

Surely. The arising of consciousness, the fact that not every animal became human which would be evolutionarily logical, the fact of both random chaos and logical order existing alongside one another, the fact that humans are capable of suicide even though the fear of death is the most powerful thing to us, the imagination, occult/paranormal occurances, etc.

Our senses are a part of us, but they are beyond the control of our ego and our conscious desires -

Like the desire to taste better food, and thus to add things such as sugar that taste better to our foods simply to make it suit what we mentally desire, even though physically too much of it hurts us?

moreover, two people receiving the same stimuli seem to experience them in the same way.

Oh? Does this include a stimuli of being slapped in the face, where one person would get angry, while another runs away and cries?

It is not impossible that we are all plugged into an alien experiment, to use your example, but it is improbable.

And that deduction is made by what we've seen, which could be very well from the alien experiment.

I reject the 'Cartesian Theatre' view of the mind, in which the consciousness sits in the middle of the brain, receiving sensory information and sending out commands. What is most likely is that the emergent 'mind' is a product of the entire nervous system, including the senses.

I agree, with the additional aspect of realizational consciousness, that isn't physical.

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it does make a belief in a spirit less intellectually honest to hold.

Of course, through probability; but as I said above, the alien experiment could be giving us that probability. The intellect is a tool, and is not the only facet of our minds. I see no reason to moreso trust the intellect and physical reality as we see it than to trust our beliefs, speculations, and imagination.

Then what should be the criterion to judge how strongly one should believe in a hypothesis?

Everything. Physical evidence, speculation, imagination, belief, occultish, paranormal occurances, and everything else.

The United states of america is actually a federal republic

The governmental system is federal, but the political system is a democratic republic, politically philosophically speaking.

[lenin32]

But cant science and religion work together? I think that they already might be, with all of these new advances in science. Scientifically, isnt eastern philosohpy the real winner? What were finding more and more, is that the universe is one big organism (Organism= a collection of parts working together in extremely complicated ways, ultimately unable to function independently of each other) This is what alot of eastern philosophy has been telling us for years.

[Kether]

It depends on what you mean by 'religion', Lenin32. 'Faith' (dogmatic belief) is totally incompatible with science, which is all about questioning, and trusting evidence instead of authority. However, science is reaching some of the same conclusions as many Eastern philosophies; this is not science and religion working together, or science affirming religion; this is science independently reaching conclusions by its own methods. On the other hand, there is no reason why Eastern wisdom (being largely non-dogmatic) cannot enjoy a reciprocal relationship with science; so long as science retains its purity, that's all right.
The arising of consciousness, the fact that not every animal became human which would be evolutionarily logical, the fact of both random chaos and logical order existing alongside one another, the fact that humans are capable of suicide even though the fear of death is the most powerful thing to us, the imagination, occult/paranormal occurrences, etc.
How can you say that consciousness isn't logical, if its origins and nature remain a mystery? Besides, there are very good evolutionary reasons why consciousness might arise. Apes decided to evolve along the pathway of large and complex brains that enabled us to interpret and manipulate our environments. A certain amount and configuration of neurones probably leads to consciousness.
Would it be 'evolutionarily logical' for every animal to be a human? There are plenty of species that survive just as well, or better, than us. No doubt there are many more members of certain species of fly in the world than there are human beings.
I couldn't comment confidently on random chaos and logical order existing alongside each other, but I would say that they are probably both part of the same logical, causal system. That is, if true randomness exists at all.
The motives behind suicide are undoubtedly very complex. A person committing suicide might be said to be acting irrationally, but that's them, not the universe.
If paranormal experiences exist, then why shouldn't there be logical explanations for them? How can you say that they are illogical, if their origins are a mystery?
Oh? Does this include a stimulus of being slapped in the face, where one person would get angry, while another runs away and cries?
That's their emotional response to the stimulus, not their sensory experience of the stimulus itself. If two people were slapped in the face, they would both feel something that they could both communicate as 'slap in the face'. Whether or not it subjectively felt like the same thing (the usual 'is my red your red' cliche) it would certainly be something very similar, something they could both relate to.

[MidnightSun]

But cant science and religion work together?

Thats what my philosophy is based on.

[lenin32]

I just cant help but feel that they are two means to the same end. They can both help us see existence for what it truly is.

[Kether]

I like to think of 'science' and 'religion' as methodologies, rather than belief systems; all religions share the same mindset, and the same can be said of scientists - even though not all faiths and scientists agree over doctrines and theories. It is not impossible for a religious belief to be shared by science, but this does not make science support religion as a way of viewing the world. Science and religion as methods of attaining knowledge are fundamentally opposed.

[scameter]

But cant science and religion work together?

Yes, except that scientists do not like religion because it often attempts to look beyond the physical, and organized religion's operaters often make it too dogmatic, beyond how it actually should be, to function alongside science.

Scientifically, isnt eastern philosohpy the real winner?

See? Even by saying that, you're critisizing religion and philosophy from the view of science by saying "Scientifically". What about, "Religiously"? Or, "Spiritually"?

How can you say that consciousness isn't logical, if its origins and nature remain a mystery?

That's not why I'm saying it is illogical. I'm saying that it is illogical because it has no real place in nature; it doesn't contribute to it's progression and attempt at better efficiency.

Apes decided to evolve along the pathway of large and complex brains that enabled us to interpret and manipulate our environments.

"Decided"? And, obviously apes didn't; if they did, there would be no more apes, only humans.

A certain amount and configuration of neurones probably leads to consciousness.

Probably.

Would it be 'evolutionarily logical' for every animal to be a human? There are plenty of species that survive just as well, or better, than us. No doubt there are many more members of certain species of fly in the world than there are human beings.

Yes indeed it would be logical. Based on science, nature tries for the most efficiency and the best, and from the view of science, we are the best biologically. Thus, why isn't every animal human, and why is it that some animals became human while most did not? Indeed, from what you just said, it would very much so appear that most of nature is seperate from us. We may live in it and use it, but it's goal seems entirely seperate from our own.

I couldn't comment confidently on random chaos and logical order existing alongside each other, but I would say that they are probably both part of the same logical, causal system. That is, if true randomness exists at all.

"If?" I thought it was a very common idea that everything in existence simply randomly occured from the Big Bang. A random explosion, or implosion or whatever, happened in the middle of nothing and from it everything came randomly, and afterwards, math and physics rules came about and helped nature to form into this logical machine. To me, this simply explains God physically. Everything from nothing? The Jews described God as doing that hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

If paranormal experiences exist, then why shouldn't there be logical explanations for them? How can you say that they are illogical, if their origins are a mystery?

That's not why I'm saying they're illogical. I'm saying that they're illogical because they are paranormal. Science attempts to downgrade everything into ordinary and normal, and for something to be paranormal, to scientists would simply mean that it hasn't been explained yet. Colin Wilson commented on this in the introduction to his book The Occult.

That's their emotional response to the stimulus, not their sensory experience of the stimulus itself.

But logically, wouldn't both react the exact same, most logical way possible?

If two people were slapped in the face, they would both feel something that they could both communicate as 'slap in the face'.

:) Excellent. That is what science does: it describes. It looks at someone getting slapped in the face, says "Yep, he got slapped in the face", and that's it. How limited.

[lenin32]

A certain amount and configuration of neurones probably leads to consciousness.

Or the illusion of consciousness. Maybe our brains have become so complex, that we think that we are exercising our free will. <_<

[scameter]

How could something like free will have even developed at all then, even as just a concept?

[locomotive]

How could something like free will have even developed at all then, even as just a concept?

simple. You percieve the memory of what happened previously and since those things that happened were a result of a falling cup it appeared that your will was to catch it and it was, only it wasn't free will because lets say your body didn't like pain and you are forced to catch it before it falls on your foot. then again if you learned or "decided" to let it fall then again you are doing this "because of something". So you percieve action depending on phenoma and because such an action is something you would do (in the past) it is you who is doing it. The part that is really doing it is not conscious and you are. But that part changes through time.

When a thought comes that the way you acted is wrong in some way you acknowledge it and from that you act differently but if the same thought comes and you expect yourself to correct it and then when you see that it is still not corrected you get frustrated then you are just running in circles calling things names.

got a little sidetracked anyway.. it is when you percieve your actions through "I" that the concept of free will comes to mind but that "I" you are reffering to was another action. If you don't identify with a memory of the cause of an action but simply view it as a action there is no free will. Beeing in the moment it is obvious.

Consciousness is the receptor within which the truth of any experience reveals itself. Adding something to that consciousness creates conflict.

[scameter]

When a thought comes that the way you acted is wrong in some way you acknowledge it

'Some way'?

you expect yourself to correct it and then when you see that it is still not corrected you get frustrated then you are just running in circles calling things names.

That's not true of everyone. Some people, many people, can do things they know to be wrong in the common sense of the word, and still do them, and do not try to correct it or run in circles calling things names.

If you don't identify with a memory of the cause of an action but simply view it as a action there is no free will. Beeing in the moment it is obvious.

Yes, but that doesn't happen. One can identify with a memory of the cause of an action, which is precisely how you are able to call something the cause of an action, which is the derivitive of introspection.

Consciousness is the receptor within which the truth of any experience reveals itself.

And we then realize that. The realization is consciousness; the receptor is the intuition, senses, and speculation.

Adding something to that consciousness creates conflict.

Why, how?

[lenin32]

I've wondered, is there any western philosophers who believe that the self doesnt exist. If so, please name said philosopher for me.

[scameter]

Well, existentialists believe that we are entirely subjective, with no real possibility of objectivity or mindfulness beyond existence, which I guess could be translated into what you're saying.

[lenin32]

But that doesnt necessarily mean they believe in a lack of a soul. Does it?

[scameter]

You said self, not soul. If you meant soul, no, many of them believed in a soul, such as Kierkegaar. But some were agnostic, such as Heidegger.

[Enviroguy]

:roll:

We one of my first memories was a description of God. It was said that He was the father of us all. I confused this with George Washington (father of our country) so I have always pictured God looking pretty much the same as Washington's picture on the one-dollar bill.

But this God was real to me. He affected my life and I talked with him regularly even as a small child. Later, at age seven, I learned of Jesus Christ and accepted him as God incarnate that died to take away my sins. He is my personal savior.

I am now forty one. And God is as real to me as any person, object or fact I have ever encountered. We interact every day in a thousand different ways. Many come here to seek. I am here because I have "found". And I have no doubt, because I live through God's grace and not through my own imperfect weakness.

You that seek can have hope, peace and understanding without doubt. Seek Christ.

Good Luck,

Enviroguy