The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

Schuhart

MeditationMom wrote:

So, in order not to get off subject, where does this Richard Dawkin fit in? I'll have to read the book, but my impression is that he is as self righteuous as any such priest, yet highly intelligent and convincing. Right about the harm religion brings to millions -and propably pretty blind to the love and peace religion brings to millions. So is religion any different from say, money or duct tape?

I can understand your reservations. I think you have to see it in terms of ideas evolving. I don't think Dawkins is the last word, but the ideas he puts forward are a necessary part of securing progress. But, clearly, simply illustrating that religion is largely baseless is not in itself a philosophy.

As to the Dawkins himself, from his various television appearances he comes across to me as very much a human being, with all that goes with it. He is impatient at some times, other times he takes the trouble to express himself clearly. But the case he makes is for reason over untruth, and I find I agree with that perspective.

Yes, people may find comfort in religion. Yes, many sick people who go to Lourdes in search of a cure return without one, but say they have become reconciled to their fate. Those are benefits and the only initial response that atheism can give is to point out that saying religion is a powerful placebo doesn't mean there's a god.

Ultimately, the atheist viewpoint does need to include some kind of personal revelation or sense of cosmic presence of the kind you mention. The problem, at present, is it raises in the minds of many the idea that you are chasing after the old comforts of religion. I know that's not really what you are saying, but I think recognition of the truth you are sensing is the next step beyond the outlook provided by Dawkins. It involves us standing with two feet on the ground, looking out at the stars, knowing that its just us and the universe.

MeditationMom

by Schuhart- Ultimately, the atheist viewpoint does need to include some kind of personal revelation or sense of cosmic presence of the kind you mention. The problem, at present, is it raises in the minds of many the idea that you are chasing after the old comforts of religion. I know that's not really what you are saying, but I think recognition of the truth you are sensing is the next step beyond the outlook provided by Dawkins. It involves us standing with two feet on the ground, looking out at the stars, knowing that its just us and the universe.

Yes, ... and ultimately, "us and the universe" as one. Not two, but absolute and total alone-ness. Even more frightening. Your paragraph sums up nicely, and better, what I was trying to say. Thanks Schuhart.

by Atheist- Why do you insist on stretching the "god" concept to fit something you are comfortable with?

It's the other way around. I was trying to fit it into something you, or any atheist, might be comfortable with. I guess that didn't work. Sorry. I thought maybe we could find agreement in the ideas of Love, or Peace, sense of wonder etc. among both atheists and believers, as those notions are shared human experiences which some people personify into some idea of a "God". Atheists and true believers finding something in common with each other? - thought it could help with finding common ground to discuss things from.

When I look at religious "war", I see one faith telling the other faith they are wrong, misguided, gullible and stupid, and will not "get it" until they change their thinking, and convert. Then I see atheists telling the same thing to all the religions. And all the religions, telling the same thing back to the atheists.

"Atheist" seemed to be the closest to my point of view, as I do value reason over blind belief. At the same time, profound Love, and Peace, and a sense of wonder, are beyond reason. Is there is no room for anything beyond reason in the atheist camp? Then I am definitely not an atheist.
I would ask the same question reversed of a religious person - is there no room for pure, hard logical thought in religion - then I am definitely not religious.
If this sounds contradictory or illogical - it is! The whole point is to use logic to its fullest extent to go beyond dualistic thinking to discover the truth of existence, which is beyond intellectual understanding, and beyond belief. This "beyond" comes as a revelation experience after either logic or faith, or both, have been utterly exhausted.

by llostexpectation- terrible *shakes head*

by lostexpectation- still nahhh

For someone who prides himself to love reason, please...a little more explanation of your opinions than this.

by lostexpectation- nobody knows these things...

That sure sounds like blind belief on your part. What is your scientific basis for this idea? How would you know, or ever be able to assume or measure this?
Nobody? Have you met, or tested, everyone on this planet? And how would you test the truth of your statement?

by lostespectation- pretending you know them or saying you are trying to get to know them is falseness associated with the religious.

Again, how can you know, for sure, what I, or anyone else, knows or doesn't know? How can you know whether I or anyone else is pretending, or actually knows something you may not know? Seems like you are going with your belief or defenses rather than your reasoning abilities.

The concept of "falseness of the religious", yes that exists, is sad, annoying and dangerous - which is why I rather call myself an atheist than anything else. I won't call myself an atheist again, though, as "I know" that there are things beyond reason and human intellectual understanding, and once in a while I do like to use the G-word to make a point, or to relate "what I know" to Christians in their own words, but not because I "believe" in God. I used to believe in God with all my heart and soul, so I do understand "belief". I used to be very clear and certain about the non-existence of God and the dark side of religion, later on, and so I do also understand atheists. Now all I can say is that both groups are right, but sometimes for the wrong reasons, the meaning of which is what I am trying to explain. Not too good at it, I guess, but I hope to improve over time.

by MeditationMom- "One of the greatest intellectuals of our times" - that is often as much trouble as religion. The last big "Intellectual Religion" was Communism.


by lostexpectation- you're american right?

Another great argument! Am I supposed to guess what you mean, or imagine what you believe, or "know", about Americans? Communists killed thousands of religious people just because of their beliefs. Strikes me as quite similar to religious fanatics. Whether the belief system is religious or intellectual/political what is the difference? Are fanatic atheists - like the old communists in Russia and China - going to try to wipe out all the religious people in the world for a more peaceful planet? Communists, Nazis, Islamic Fundamentalists, Christian Crusaders... all the same in my book. Is this uniquely American?

by lostexpectation- but if religion is bad and we don't encourage badness, and we show love by disincentifying badness then we must actively counter act this bad.

Agreed, and a noble and loving effort. I'd be the last to tell you not to. But I am a little nervous about what you mean by "actively counter". Do you mean informed debate, intelligent arguments - or actions, as in fighting and killing, the way Communists eradicated religions in Russia, China, Tibet? And don't forget that religious people are trying to do the very same thing as the atheists- counter "bad" and show love by discouraging badness - from their point of view.

by lostexpectation- pssst athiest don't talk like you do. so there's a clue

Point taken. Thanks for the clue. But I don't think they all talk like you do either.

by atheist- It certainly doesn't make you sound like an atheist (which is cool) but more like a pantheist, or maybe a New Ager.

Pantheist and New Ager are just describing yet another belief system. I made a mistake trying to identify with a group. I have simply spent countless hours over the last 30+ years in the pursuit of truth, first by studying physics and later by spending endless amounts of time in silence, alone-ness, contemplation, reflection, meditation and all the usaul lifestruggles.
It unfortunately sounds very dramatic when I say I had a certain "revelation" that is a direct experience and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put into words. (And no, it wasn't a near-death experience either - far beyond form, light, images, thought, feelings, ideas etc.)
So far, as I am looking into all the religions and belief systems that I can dig up, I have found truth, and often the most eloquent expression of truth, in all of them, including atheism. And much nonsense, also, in all of them. I make friends and enemies in all camps. It also seems on the surface that I am contradicting myself constantly, depending on who I respond to or which language I chose to use in trying to explain or express something. The total of all my posts - maybe can exhaust logic or belief for somebody out there for a glimps of freedom.

"Enemies" help me to sharpen my mind in my strange efforts to express "what I know" and have no words for, and people friendly to me often put what I say into better words, helping me that way, and also allow me to get a little more poetic or mystical in my expressions, or ask new questions. It's all good. I really made a mistake trying to identify with any particular group. "Atheist" was just the most logical and tempting. A momentary lapse into dualistic thinking on my part, even though to my defense, I did qualify it.

lostexpectation

MeditationMom wrote:

Agreed, and a noble and loving effort. I'd be the last to tell you not to. But I am a little nervous about what you mean by "actively counter". Do you mean informed debate, intelligent arguments - or actions, as in fighting and killing,

I think there plenty of room between the two.

and also allow me to get a little more poetic or mystical in my expressions,

im not sure you could get more mysterious.

Dades

MeditationMom wrote:

Sorry. I thought maybe we could find agreement in the ideas of Love, or Peace, sense of wonder etc. among both atheists and believers, as those notions are shared human experiences which some people personify into some idea of a "God".

Don't be sorry for anything. The problem is all the lines become blurred when the "god" concept is applied to something as vague as love, nature, consciousness or whatever. None of those are a "god" in any real definition of the term. I guess your personal definition of god is what makes you what you are, atheist, agnostic, theist etc. But when you start to define your own god you might as well be making up a new religion.

MeditationMom wrote:

"Atheist" seemed to be the closest to my point of view, as I do value reason over blind belief. At the same time, profound Love, and Peace, and a sense of wonder, are beyond reason. Is there is no room for anything beyond reason in the atheist camp? Then I am definitely not an atheist.

Do athiests not experience love, peace or wonder? If you prick us do we not bleed? Finding some sort of blanket understanding of existence is not a prerequisite for wonderment. You responded to my mention of Carl Sagan earlier. A typical example of a devout atheist who spent his life in search of peace, and in awe at the wonderment of the unknown.

MeditationMom wrote:

If this sounds contradictory or illogical - it is! The whole point is to use logic to its fullest extent to go beyond dualistic thinking to discover the truth of existence, which is beyond intellectual understanding, and beyond belief. This "beyond" comes as a revelation experience after either logic or faith, or both, have been utterly exhausted.

Using logic to find the truth behind our existence will only bring a part way down the road. Travelling that road of logic we pass the remains of previous attempts to explain our existence - called faith. Logic suggests we don't know the truth and have no way of knowing. To suggest there is some other way of knowing is turning around, and going back down that road.

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

"God" is beyond belief. God is Love, and God is Peace. Do we believe in Love, and Peace, or do we know Love, and Peace?

Groan ... no offense but sounds all very wishy washy. Which you know, is grand and all, but it really makes no sense at all.

God is love and God is peace?

No, love is "love", and peace is "peace".

"God" is a supernatural intelligence that is supposed to have created the universe and everything in it.

Why humans feel the need to abstract out concepts like "god" to fill massive definition sets is beyond me. Why do you personify something that has no need tobe personified.

"God is the smile on a childs face" a Christian friend said to me once. My thoughts were that the smile on a childs face is the smile on a childs face.

Is that not enough? Can I not apprecate the smile on a childs face on its own, without attaching some very undefined wishy washy concept such as "god" to that to some how make it more worthy of my apprecation?

That makes me sound all grumpy and cranky, and I'm really a swell guy. But for some reason things like that just really annoy me. It is just so silly

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

If this sounds contradictory or illogical - it is! The whole point is to use logic to its fullest extent to go beyond dualistic thinking to discover the truth of existence, which is beyond intellectual understanding, and beyond belief.

But you are not using logic, or reason. You are using wishy washy undefined words like "love" and "infinate peace" to try and describe things, as if that put great meaning on the things you are describing.

None of those things actually mean anything, preciesly because you haven't defined them in any way to mean anything. So they seem at first kind of wonderous and mysterious, but when you actually think about it they are say meaningless as saying "infinate cake" binds the universe together.

Of course there is no harm in this, to each their own. If it makes sense to you good luck with that. But you have to understand it is going to turn a lot of atheists, like myself and lostexpectation off.

I don't instill an artificial man made concept to something in order to feel wonder or pleasure out of it. THe universe doesn't have to contain infinate love and infinate peace for me to find it infinately wonderous. It can just be what it is. That is enough. A supernova doesn't contain "love" nor does it contain "peace". It doesn't contian "hate" or "war". It just is what it is, a collection of super dense atoms exploding. And it is cool to look at, and wonder at the scale and size of it.

I know exactly why I smile like an idiot when I see a giggling child. And it is nothing to do with an infinate love that sweeps through the universe binding everything togethe like the Force out of StarWars. It is to do with biological evolution, my inbuild natural instinct and urge to protect human off spring, even those that aren't mind. My mind is triggering a happy response to the facial shape of the child, and the sound it is making, in an attempt to bond me to the child, so I will if necessary protect it from danger.

Now some might say "Oh, that is so cold and clinical, you are taking all the wonder out of the experience. Is it not much nicer to say that the universe powerful force of 'love' bonds you to that child".

I could, but I would be talking nonsense. And more importantly why would I feel the need to in the first place

I am perfectly happy knowing why I enjoy seeing a child smile (that sounds a little pervy, so I might change the metephor ) Knowing this in no way deminishes the experience, or my enjoyment of it. Applying reason to something doesn't destroy the wonder of it? I think it is really really cool that evolution has developed such a system in the first place. I think it is really cool that dogs have managed to manipulate this process so we will help protect them (there is a theory that dogs evolved to take advantage of our instincts to protect children by adapting their facial structure, such as big eyes, when puppies). I think that is really really cool and facinating.

This is ultimately the message of Dawkins. You don't need to apply silly abstract man made concepts like "God", to things, they are fine as they are just existing.

Things are pretty cool and interesting as they are

Reason is not something to be shunned away, it should be embraced. You don't need to apply something like the very abstract concept of "infinate peace" (what does that even mean?) to say a star formation or a butterfly. A butterfly is just a butterfly. A star formation is just a star formation. But they are interesting and wonderous on there own

Dave!

^
I concur.

Beruthiel

Well said wicknight, you have put it better than I ever could.
The world has evolved into a wonderous place, it doesn't need anything else added to make it more so.

Dave!

There's a chapter at the start of the book that deals with just this Einsteinian Pantheism and all that...

5uspect

Yeap, well said Wicknight, I see you've been studying hard. So when's the written exam?!

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

That makes me sound all grumpy and cranky, and I'm really a swell guy.

Modest to boot

But for some reason things like that just really annoy me.

So does that mean that God is annoying, or that annoying things are annoying?

MediationMan wrote:

The whole point is to use logic to its fullest extent to go beyond dualistic thinking to discover the truth of existence, which is beyond intellectual understanding, and beyond belief.

Your definition of logic does not match our human definition of logic.

Logically you cannot discover truth beyond understanding.

Big words only impress people who don't fully understand them.

Schuhart

DaveMcG wrote:

There's a chapter at the start of the book that deals with just this Einsteinian Pantheism and all that...

I’m in the happy position of not having read the book, for which I accept all the abuse that can be hurled for thus commenting.

bonkey wrote:

Big words only impress people who don't fully understand them.

When this kind of thing starts creeping in, I think we have to ask if we’re actually trying to get anywhere. Clearly people can take any opportunity to seize what they see as the moral high ground. Alternatively, they can try and understand what someone is trying to communicate and add and subtract what might make a better statement.

As I see it, the essential points being made about the need to strip away the layer of folderol that religion adds is correct. I think of the Lourdes sequence in Dawkins’ TV series as a good place to start this consideration. Wandering around with candles at night in a McReligion grotto doesn’t cause some god to leap into action and cure your cancer - which is rarely the claim made. Nor does it cause him to leap into your mind and stop your worry that you’ll soon be very very dead – which is more frequently the experience. Yet something in all that folderol gives some people that piece of mind.

I would speculate that piece of mind comes from achieving that final acceptance that we all reach some end point. Maybe some take comfort from an illusion of an eternal life. We are seeking some alternative route, a way of just facing the conclusion that reason suggests – death is the end of this individual.

I don’t see an atheist outlook per se as addressing this. It primarily just points out that there’s no point in chasing a religion unless you can be happy drawing comfort from an illusion. But that still leaves a vacuum for where this and that individual fit into the world.

I think the points being made on the other side are just about that. It’s about addressing that individual space, but in the clear light that religion is error. I’ve a very superficial understanding of Buddhism, but the little I know suggests it tries to follow this path. I think it essentially has to do with some concept of each of us being a product of evolution to this date and contributing to evolution in the future. It’s an awareness that the very material of your body has been around since the dawn of the universe and will be there until the end – its just the consciousness that evaporates.

I’d stress this is not about filling that individual space with illusion. It is simply a suggestion that this space exists – and the failure of atheism to fill it may go a way to explain why religion persists in the face of reason.

pH

Stephen Unwin writing in the Guardian trots out the same old "you can't be sure" argument 'against' Dawkins. Unwin wrote a book that calculated the probability of God to be 67%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329588697-103677,00.html

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

Yeap, well said Wicknight, I see you've been studying hard. So when's the written exam?!

Hey, that was all me baby. I've haven't even bought the book yet

Dawkins has nothing on me

5uspect

LOL, sure maybe ye could publish the creationism thread and it might outsell Dawkins. Why try to reason when we can let the creationists talk everyone into disbelief?!

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Stephen Unwin writing in the Guardian trots out the same old "you can't be sure" argument 'against' Dawkins. Unwin wrote a book that calculated the probability of God to be 67%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329588697-103677,00.html

Who is this Unwin guy? He sounds very similar to the Creationists you find on Boards.ie

Unwin wrote:

As for Dawkins' assertion that moral behaviour for believers is simply "sucking up to God", or that morality doesn't need faith, I feel that such observations miss the more fundamental question of why we have moral or aesthetic values at all - such as the ones by which Dawkins, myself and others venerate rational analysis. This is among the questions that, to my knowledge, no science is on the verge of answering compellingly. But on this matter I am fanatically uncertain.

In fact science has gone a long way to answering why we have moral frameworks embedded in your instincts and emotions.

But even if it hadn't, that is not evidence for a God

Dave!

Schuhart wrote:

I’m in the happy position of not having read the book, for which I accept all the abuse that can be hurled for thus commenting.

Don't get so defensive, I was just pointing out how relevent the book is, and that if anyone's interested there's a chapter about it. Calm.....

Schuhart

DaveMcG wrote:

Don't get so defensive, I was just pointing out how relevent the book is, and that if anyone's interested there's a chapter about it. Calm.....

Apologies for causing alarm - its really not a big deal at my end. I was just making it clear that my knowledge of Dawkins is limited to the TV series and interview, and that I don't doubt that he has to compress what he's saying for that format. I do intend looking for his book in the library at some stage to give it a trot.

robindch

> Who is this Unwin guy? He sounds very similar to the Creationists you
> find on Boards.ie

Yeah, that's about right. Stephen Unwin is a physics graduate of Manchester University who arrived in the USA some years back and now works in the insurance industry in Ohio.

Unwin's contribution to humanity is a short calculation of the probability that god exists, helpfully carried out in Excel and extended to best-selling book form in 2004. The gist of the calculation is that if you start off assuming that there's a fifty-fifty probability that god exists, then add on for all the good things that happen in the world (which is evidence that god exists), and subtract off for all the bad stuff that happens (evidence that god doesn't exist), then you end up with a 67-33 propability that god exists. And bully for him in thinking up of this new wheeze.

Actually, there are two things about Unwin that will strike the non-credulous immediately: (a) the book is sub-titled "A simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth"; it seems that the editor may have been unaware that a 67% probability does not constitute a formal "proof", even using creationist maths; and (b) Unwin has apparently added that he's "95% certain" that god exists, which doesn't say much for how much he trusts his own calculations.

Oh well. The religious have no doubt taken this as proof-positive that their favourite deity exists, while atheists and agnostics will just slouch back into their chairs, shake their heads, sigh a little and reach for another can of the saving beer.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Unwin's contribution to humanity is a short calculation of the probability that god exists, helpfully carried out in Excel and extended to best-selling book form in 2004. The gist of the calculation is that if you start off assuming that there's a fifty-fifty probability that god exists, then add on for all the good things that happen in the world (which is evidence that god exists), and subtract off for all the bad stuff that happens (evidence that god doesn't exist), then you end up with a 67-33 propability that god exists. And bully for him in thinking up of this new wheeze.

Quite possibly the dumbest thing i've heard in a while, even from a 95% theist.

Good things happen which is evidence for God? How?

I wonder what percentage the fact the people are morons factor into his calculations

pH

Wicknight wrote:

Good things happen which is evidence for God? How?

I wonder what percentage the fact the people are morons factor into his calculations

The "evidences" pro and con as identified by the author are:
1. The recognition of goodness.
2. The existence of moral evil.
3. The existence of natural evil.
4. Intra-natural miracles.
5. Extra-natural miracles.
6. Religious experiences.
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Shermer/E-Skeptic/ProbabilityofGod.html

MeditationMom

by Wicknight- No, love is "love", and peace is "peace".
the smile on a childs face is the smile on a childs face.
Things are pretty cool and interesting as they are

I love what you posted. You are right and I agree - it is enough. A smile is a smile is a smile. If the whole world could be in this attitude of seeing what is, and being in this attitude towards it, as you describe - how could there not be peace within the human heart and maybe even in the world?

How can I say this with everything else I have said before, especially about finding truth? The Atheist has his eyes wide open. "Here I am, I see the Universe around me, it's amazing, and I don't have a clue how this all came to be and neither does anyone else."

"...and neither does anyone else" is the problem. The atheist has his eyes directed outwards. Generally speaking, anyway. Most atheists have not spent hundreds of hours in meditation, in other words "inwards". Meditation, not in the sense of prayer or all the infinite meditation techniques out there, but just "looking inward", intensely, with the same attitude of "I don't have a clue, but I wonder what I'll find here, looking in the opposite direction".

The motivation to do so, is quite scientific, since once we look at the outside world and how our senses work, none of what we see, hear, touch etc is reliable, truthful information, as wonderful as it may be. So this reality, is it real? Or is it a sort of waking dream not much unlike our dreams in sleep?

What is revealed, discovered, remembered, on the "inside" is not possible to describe. So when people do, it is mostly poetic, in metaphors or parables, mystical or even unskilled and causes so much confusion that it is debatable whether saying anything is at all a good idea. Especially when those words over time get "interpreted" or are thousands of years old - all hell breaks lose.

So all I would suggest to atheists is not to do what religious people do - making a statement like "...and nobdy else knows either", even though it is true in 99.9% of the cases of religious people making their belief statements as if they knew - but it is not true in an absolute sense. Now the only way you could test that there is more to find out about the Universe and the Truth of Existence by looking within - which is just going to be blackness, brain tricks and hallucinations for the first several decades of meditation practise (also produces a lot of atheists) - would be to start meditating yourself. Just like, if you wanted to find out a lot more about the Universe than you know now, in our so-called reality, you'd have to study Physics for decades to get even close to what is known so far about the Universe just in "reality" terms. And good luck understanding it.

Not too many people would commit to that.

The Atheists is happy with what he sees and what is around him and if he is not a fanatic, can enjoy and love existence, often more so than any religious person. Even though he may wonder about "how it all came to be" he may not go on an active internal search about this question, as he has decided "it cannot be known". Even though this is a wrong conclusion, it is freeing, and deceivingly close to the freedom a Buddha or Jesus talk about, when Buddha for example talks about Liberation, or Jesus makes a statement like: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Great relief and freedom, not to go into something as difficult as meditation and just enjoy life, and the beauty of it. If, on the other hand, one were to pursue the answer to "how does it all come to be", this long and grueling search for the truth, and if one were to actually discover it, what then?
Well, nothing left to do but to be, here now, in the present, be with what is - be with the sunset. It is what it is, a sunset, enjoy it. Because even if you know how it came to be, or how you came to be, it doesn't matter. You are sitting on the beach with a beautiful sunset on the horizon, means, you are sitting on the beach with a beautiful sunset on the horizon. Nothing more, nothing less.

The difference between someone who has never undertaken the inner search and someone who has and has remembered the truth, is like the difference between someone who is sober and has been sober most of his life (the atheist, who never was hooked on the sweet, poisonous elixir of religion or suffered the intense longing and all-consuming desire to know the truth)- and a recovered alcoholic who is sober after a long, long, difficult effort (a liberated, enlightened, self-realized, awakened one - there are many names for this, unfortunately suggesting some kind of superiority which doesn't exist). Both are free of religion, yet the "ex-alcoholic" can relate to both atheists and religious people alike. Both groups will find this person somewhat strange and mysterious, even arrogant. My cross to bear - .

It reminds me of a zen story where a disciple asks his master: " What is different after Enlightenment?" and the master says:" Before Enlightenment I went to the well and carried the water up the hill, and after Enlightenment...I go to the well and carry the water up the hill." Or as in another story- same question, the master says: "When I am tired I sleep, when I am hungry I eat, when it is cold I cover myself with a blanket."

Is Enlightenment necessary? No. Only if "not knowing" or any other kind of suffering is robbing you of your peace or ability to love. The atheist, advanced scientist, philosopher or wise man will say: "I know that I don't know", the Enlightened one will either say nothing or say the strangest things you've ever heard until in the end it seems like he has said nothing.

by bonkey- Your definition of logic does not match our human definition of logic.

That could well be. I don't really know the definition of logic. I do recall - well vaguely - that some philosophers applying logic have come "full circle" - disproving themselves and then committing suicide. Was it Kierkegaard? That moment of being at the end of one's mental, logical faculties is when one needs to jump into the unknown, or beyond the mind if you will -suicide is an unfortunate mistake made by people in that moment if they don't have guidance from someone experienced on this particular path of searching for truth by intellect and logic. Not too many available in the West.

by bonkey- Logically you cannot discover truth beyond understanding.

That is if you assume that ultimate truth is discoverable with the mind or your understanding. You can come to the limits of logic or what the mind is capable of and then the next logical step would be to discard logic and keep moving on without the mind. We can understand the idea of the body stopping to move, but not of the mind stopping to move. At least Westerners have a hard time to think of the mind as a hindrance to truth. And what is it that keeps moving if the mind is still?
Once the mind is at complete rest and stillness, completely out of the way, truth is revealed. And it is literally like a veil that is lifted or fog dispersed and what was always there behind it is crystal clear and beyond any doubt the ultimate Truth . The mind neither understands it nor does a great job describing it after it happens. It is more real than any sense of reality ever was before - ultimate, true reality.

by bonkey- Big words only impress people who don't fully understand them.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, except that "you are not impressed" To clear up anything about big words - my poor mind is trying to put into words something that is beyond its logical capabilities. I know what it is to go beyond the mind and am here to tell about it - with my mind/words unfortunately the only way I can attempt that here. Therefore most of the writing will sound contradictory, strange, mysterious, religious, irreligious, arrogant or idiotic to most, or true to those who have the same experience or some intuition about what I am trying to say. What can I do? I am not trying to impress anybody. So, no problem if you aren't. I only hope to sometimes write something that is logically illogical and whoever reads it gets a moment of














Did it work?
Hope springs eternal.

lostexpectation

again what a long load of crap,

he said 'I don't have a clue how this all came to be and neither does anyone else'

this is true, even for you.

nobody said athiests don't look.


most of us we're catholics, religious by common definition, we were't addicted, anyone who^ suggest they might have been is the one with problem.

ps there is no gap

Beruthiel

Wicknight wrote:

I wonder what percentage the fact the people are morons factor into his calculations

Well he did throw in a percentage to factor in 'faith', so there's your answer

Dades

lostexpectation wrote:

again what a long load of crap

A little harsh don't you think? There are other ways of saying you disagree with something fundamentally.

MeditationMom - you've got to admit it's a hard sell convincing the users here your found the Ultimate Truth, by looking "inwards" for decades through meditation and are unable to actually define it with words. You have to think if somebody wants to find an a truth that badly they'll come up with one eventually. It may not be the right one - just the most satisfying one.

I'm happy you've found your Truth, but I suggest you don't impress that it's anyone's but your own.

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

The motivation to do so, is quite scientific, since once we look at the outside world and how our senses work, none of what we see, hear, touch etc is reliable, truthful information, as wonderful as it may be. So this reality, is it real? Or is it a sort of waking dream not much unlike our dreams in sleep?

If someone assume that it is some kind of waking dream then they might believe that there are answers to be found by looking inward and attempting to discover the how the brain is forming this dream.

The problem with that is that you are inventing a problem to solve, and as such are probably inventing the answer as well. What if it isn't some kind of waking dream. What if the nature of reality is as it is. If you assume it isn't and then go looking for another reality inside your own head you will undoubtable just find circumstantial evidence for what you have already assumed.

You are in fact less likely to find "truth" looking inside because of the brains uncanny ability to trick, confuse, or dillude itself. The more reasonable way of finding "truth" about the nature of reality is to see if anyone else is experiencing the same thing.

MeditationMom wrote:

Now the only way you could test that there is more to find out about the Universe and the Truth of Existence by looking within

Not to be rude, but why do you assume the answer does actually lie within? How did it get there in the first place? Why would the brains of a rather primitive life form that developed in quite a short period of time on a quite average rock in a very average solar system contain locked in its sub-conscious, the secrets to the fundamental nature of reality?

I think instead of "truth" maybe a better term to use is "inner peace", or "clarity of outlook" I certainly believe that meditation can help someone develop a better outlook, or clarity in philisophy towards observing the universe.

But I see no reason to believe that inward meditation will allow someone to some how discover something in access of what they already know.

You can only rearrange, organise and clarify what you already know through meditaion. You cannot increase your body of over all knowledge.

MeditationMom wrote:

Only if "not knowing" or any other kind of suffering is robbing you of your peace or ability to love.

Again that touches on the point I made earlier about the minds ability to decieve itself.

The greatest leasson a person can learn is to not be afraid of not knowing something. This fear of the unknown leads to our mind tricking us into accepting explinations for things that while giving comfort and piece of mind, are in fact as pointless to understanding what is actually happening as simply saying "I don't know".

That is basically what religion is, assigning artifical meaning to things we don't know. And people do this because it is comforting.

And without meaning to sound rude or anything, this is also what some people do when they say they have found an inner truth to something that makes everything seem to make sense.

They haven't actually found any "truth", what has happened is that their brains have arranged things in a certain way logically in their heads, and their sub-conscious imagination has filled in the blanks, so they end up with a picture of the universe where the "unknown" is kept to the minium and as such they feel happier about things, as the unknown can unnerve and frighten people, even if they are not fully aware of this.

There is nothing wrong with this, so long as a person does not take it all too seriously, and I personally feel that a better out look would to learn to be not afraid of admitting to oneself that they simply do not know certain things, no matter how uncomfortable that might make them at first.

MeditationMom wrote:

Once the mind is at complete rest and stillness, completely out of the way, truth is revealed.

That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

"Truth" is revealed by what exactly? And how did this information end up there in the first place.

I personally don't believe you aren't discovering anything new, you are simply "filling in the blanks" so to speak so that the model in your head as to how the world works is less threatening to you. This undoubtable leads to a great sense of peace and contentment, but really you have not discovered anything beyond what you already knew, and the things you didn't know are still left unknown.

MeditationMom

Appreciate your thoughts, everyone, and can't argue with them. You are also very kind and civilized, as well as intelligent, in the way you respond to my crazy statements and I appreciate that, also. One more question from me: How do you know what is possible through meditation? Why do you think that decades and lifetimes of meditation are practiced all over the world because of the realization of the limits of the mind? The mind "filling in the blanks" is what happens in meditation endlessly, which is why teachers and masters are needed to explain what is the usual nonsense and what is not. The final "event" is something instantly recognised as Truth and not a mental "filling in the blanks". All I am trying to say to you is - add meditation to your way of exploring, not just thinking. Nonetheless, I am genuinely impressed with your thinking. It is very clear and logical, not fanatic at all.

by Wicknight- "Truth" is revealed by what exactly? And how did this information end up there in the first place.

You're sitting in a movie, crying, laughing, horrified, trying to make sense of it all, then the projector breaks - a real experience - that shows you the absolute reality of the situation. That's all. The projector gets fixed. You watch the rest of the movie, but everything has changed for you, never to be the same. You notice your neighbour close to a heart attack during a scene (suffering) or trying to discover the truth of existence (search), you try to tell him, hey, I know the truth and I'm telling you, you can relax, this is all not real, don't look for the truth in the movie, it is not there, but elsewhere - and he is most likely to take your head off. Maybe what I am doing is running around the movie theater "helping" people and they don't like it at all, it is after all disruptive. Maybe we can just wait until the projector breaks for everyone by itself. Less time consuming for me. But I was intrigued by people who talked like me and was helped by them when my suffering became so great that I needed the truth more than my life in the movie. I mean no harm, I am not trying to impress anyone, and I am cool if nobody is interested. But if there are a hundred-thousand out there who don't need me or even get annoyed by what I say, I'll take all the abuse for the one who does. Like a good Mom. This is what I need to practise and why I think I am presently drawn to this forum and others. I need to become braver, a lot braver. I actually don't know whether I will be able to take all the abuse, required of a good MeditationMom, or will be able to express myself well enough. I feel the need to object when someone says stuff like "there is no gap". It is not true. Or when genuine seekers or even meditators make wrong conclusions from their experiences or in their thinking. I want to correct them. How can I tell who would welcome it and who would just rather get me off the forum? From here I just have no way of knowing. Who am I to "correct" people's thinking? I am just here and I can, if it is needed or welcome. Again and again and again correcting a thought, one by one, the way I clean my house or fold the laundry, again and again, every day the same.

When "the projector breaks" it is a big shock, like the earth disappearing from beneath your feet, but a hundred times worse. It is not just going to happen unless you prepare yourself. It is facing death - not exactly child's play or for the faint hearted or the impatient. People give up and announce "there is no gap", there is nothing to be discovered inside beyond the mind - but it is just not true.
Integrating this experience into life is a challenge. How to be in the movie afterwards? How to relate to your friends and neighbors? What is love and compassion now- who needs your "help" and guidance and who could be harmed by it, or is it entirely useless and you should keep it to yourself? Can I take the inevitable abuse? Maybe just return to the laundry. Now that would be enlightened! That is what I have done for the last 21 years and recently this has been feeling like a cop-out. Being on the forum still is pretty shy, I am not ready for people yelling and screaming at me in real life even knowing full well, and not just as an intellectual idea, they are "just part of the movie called reality". Not that people are yelling and screaming at me here at Boards - at least it is pretty benign and civilized in comparison to some American forums and I am grateful for your generosity and intelligence.

And, you are all completely right. There is no truth beyond the movie you see before your eyes - nothing more and nothing less to it than what you see - until the projector breaks.

MeditationMom

by Atheist- MeditationMom - you've got to admit it's a hard sell convincing the users here your found the Ultimate Truth, by looking "inwards" for decades through meditation and are unable to actually define it with words. You have to think if somebody wants to find an a truth that badly they'll come up with one eventually. It may not be the right one - just the most satisfying one.

I'm happy you've found your Truth, but I suggest you don't impress that it's anyone's but your own.

I do have to admit that, and appreciate your advise. Maybe I'll try poetry. Like love poems I could write truth poems. Thanks everybody for indulding me for as long as you did.

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

How do you know what is possible through meditation?

I don't know what is possible through meditation, but I know what isn't possible through meditation.

For example, it isn't possible to move a physical object. And neither is it possible to increase your knowledge beyond what you have already learn or experienced.

You can simply re-arrange this knowledge to give you clarity. Which is a great thing, that is not a failing of meditation. Meditation is what it is.

MeditationMom wrote:

Why do you think that decades and lifetimes of meditation are practiced all over the world because of the realization of the limits of the mind?

Same reason people all over the world go to the gym. Just because I know I won't ever be able to fly, or run as fast as a horse, doesn't mean I think going to the gym is pointless.

MeditationMom wrote:

The final "event" is something instantly recognised as Truth and not a mental "filling in the blanks".

How would you know the difference?

As I said earlier, the greatest mistake someone who is looking for the truth (in a universal sense) can do is forget the uncanny ability of the mind to trick itself.

In science the only universal truth is the realisation that we cannot know for sure exactly how things work. We can only get our models as close to reality as we can. Even when our models are perfectly replicating reality we still will not no for sure that this is the case.

Put simply no one is going to tell us we are 100% right, and we ourselves can never be 100% sure we are 100% right.

MeditationMom wrote:

You're sitting in a movie, crying, laughing, horrified, trying to make sense of it all, then the projector breaks - a real experience - that shows you the absolute reality of the situation. That's all. The projector gets fixed. You watch the rest of the movie, but everything has changed for you, never to be the same.

Ok, but you areally aren't talking about "truth" here, you are talking about outlook or clarity in how you view the world.

If through meditation you find a different, maybe better, way of looking at life then that is great. But that isn't a "truth". You haven't discovered something new, you have just shifted the prisim you use to view the world around you.

I'm all for that btw, but "truth" is the wrong concept to describe it as.

MeditationMom

by Wicknight-
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeditationMom
The final "event" is something instantly recognised as Truth and not a mental "filling in the blanks".

How would you know the difference?

As I said earlier, the greatest mistake someone who is looking for the truth (in a universal sense) can do is forget the uncanny ability of the mind to trick itself.

I know. There is just no way to convince anyone that the difference is quite clear. That the mind is gone. Finally, no more tricking. How do I know? Now that is the strangest thing of all. I don't know how I know that, so you might be right after all.