Belief in a 'Higher Power'.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Oderint dum metuant?

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. :pac:

ColmDawson

Joe1919 wrote: »

What's actually wrong with 'connotations of sentience'. Are you saying that feelings are not important ?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that nature doesn't have feelings, so the connotations of sentience assigned to nature when you refer to it as a 'higher power' are misleading.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. :pac:

As Caligula no doubt enjoyed

More seriously, it's interesting to see that such a small group of authors has caused so much angst amongst the religious who've been producing their own vast literature for millennia with barely a squeak permitted. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, they're haring about like scalded cats.(*)

(*) Mixed metaphor used in accordance with EU regulations.

ColmDawson

It's because you new atheists are so shrill and strident ... why can't you be more like those classy deists? Absolute gentlemen, they were. Founded the USA on Christian values and everything. And so much easier to quote mine.

Ickle Magoo

Joe1919 wrote: »

What's actually wrong with 'connotations of sentience'. Are you saying that feelings are not important ?
Another famous atheist was David Hume and his famous quote is 'Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions'. You don't have to agree with this but his idea is that logic and reason are just 'tools' that we use to satisfy our feelings and instincts.
http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://everything2.com/title/Reason%2Bis%25252C%2Band%2Bought%2Bonly%2Bto%2Bbe%2Bthe%2Bslave%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bpassions&sa=U&ei=9nBXTKm0JIa80gTArJ24Cw&ved=0CAoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEsez69Y8qJEmGXI5eRKosA7X7vuQ

PS I love the old atheists. They had more 'spirit' than theists.

Actually, there is much debate as to whether Hume was an atheist, old or otherwise. He was decidedly mistrustful of religious establishments and his writings were often critical of religion but he was notoriously ambiguous when it came to revealing his own thoughts on the matter. He has been called irreligious and it has been noted that Hume

"did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity".

I think rather than having more "spirit" quite the opposite may be the case, "old atheists" were a product of their heretical, blasphemous times and I have no doubt their work is often suitably ambiguous and watered-down as a result. Of course, that suits those who would rather a spade not be called a spade.

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

he was notoriously ambiguous when it came to revealing his own thoughts on the matter.

Quite possibly because Thomas Aikenhead was executed, at the behest of the religious, a short walk from where Hume was born 14 years later.

It seems plausible to think that Hume enjoyed being alive and may have avoided writing anything too scandalous to the broad minds and feelings of the religious, lest he be executed too.

roosh

Joe1919 wrote: »

I suppose we have become too reliant on material goods, which are often unnecessary and only have symbolic or 'status' value. A move back to some type of 'spiritualism' may be good. It may especially be useful in the future if our standards of living continue to drop.

One of the effects of elevating nature to a 'higher power' is a tendency to be more accepting of what nature throws at you. There may be a good side to this in terms of personal happiness but on the other hand it may make some people too passive and accepting of the undesirable things of nature.

It has also been argued that most of our happiness comes not from our 'selves' but with our relationship with the world and with others.

Thinking in terms of a 'higher power' may reduce the subjective 'self-centered' way we view ourselves and increase our self-esteem. (by accepting that we are part of a greater cosmos). This may seem paradoxial but we are often more happier when we take our minds off ourselves and are totally absorbed in something external to ourselves. We lose the 'self' so to speak. It may also make us more objective in how we judge ourselves and less at the mercy of the perceived judgements of others.

We can just relax and get on with life. We may be nothing special. We just live the moment. Perhaps we have come just from Nature and will go back to Nature in the end.

I agree with this almost completely, and the only real disagreement is nitpicking, based on the term "spiritualism" vs the term "Spirituality".

roosh

Truley wrote: »

Obviously I can only draw from my own interpretation of higher power* As a practical outlook it has made me more receptive to ideas and information and empathic in my views. Less judgemental and far less conceited in how I would have previously looked at the world. That's my practical experience anyway.

Higher power = that what influences us but we do not fully understand.


Ah good point, and something that I've mulled over before. While I do think that opening oneself to 'higher powers' and the wider world/consciousness/ whatever can be inspiring and educational. I don't think that it should be done at the expense of your own personal consciousness. At the end of the day your ego is what gives you perspective and good judgement, and is essential to maintaining a balanced mental health. Think of it as a sort of secure place from which you 'look out.' That's why I have always been incredibly skeptical of (oh so common) spiritual practices and meditations that seem to involve coming 'out of yourself.' Also people who try to achieve this with drugs and alcohol, I think that sort of idea is more damaging than beneficial.

I tend to agree, to a large extent, with the idea outlined of the "Higher Power", however it is the issue of the Ego and the spiritual practices, that I would discuss.

I can only really speak in terms of Budhist practice and philosophy, as it is the spiritual tradition with which one I am most familar. In this tradition, the practices and meditation are not so much concerned with coming "our of yourself", but rather with becoming aware of the true nature of our "self".

The concept of the Ego relates more to the fundamental misperception that we have of ourself, and our habitually programmed actions, that cause us to act unconsciously in everyday life. Spiritual practices and meditation are concerned with increasing our awareness and consciousness of our actions, so that we can act (as opposed to react) in a more constructive manner.

roosh

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Hooooooo! Back her up there a small bit Joe... I can't say I agree that standards of living have dropped over either a short or long term view. I think the standards of living in most parts of the world have improved or at worst remained unchanged.

I have to say I think a move to 'spiritualism' is a move to, "let's hope really hard someone with more power than us can fix our problems for us".

It might be more the quality of life, as opposed to the standards of living.

Ickle Magoo

robindch wrote: »

Quite possibly because Thomas Aikenhead was executed, at the behest of the religious, a short walk from where Hume was born 14 years later.

It seems plausible to think that Hume enjoyed being alive and may have avoided writing anything too scandalous to the broad minds and feelings of the religious, lest he be executed too.

The all pervasive religious element would definitely put you off pining your flag to the mast in those days.

Ironically, my school house was Hume. :cool:

the_syco

ColmDawson wrote: »

Why?

Although I believe in random chance, I prefer the though that we were created by aliens: it improves the chances that there are other life around the place.

magicbastarder

who created the aliens?

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

For me, if there is a higher power, its effects seem to be unobservable with our current scientific tools. If this higher power doesnt impinge on our world then it is irrelevant and unobservable and not very interesting or important to us here on Earth. So the only interesting line would be that it DOES impact on our world but in a way we dont understand or cant observe at the moment.

The only area in which that sort of impact could exist and not be observable and quantifiable by us, is in quantum mechanics. Specifically areas like quantum uncertainty and particle wave duality which appear to draw a veil over the deeper workings of the universe. In particular things like entangled pairs exhibit very curious behaviour which does not completely fit with standard model physics and indeed much of QM is very weird indeed. (look into the double slit experiment to see a case of where the universe simply wriggles out of a Gotcha set up )

So, for me, if there is a higher power of any description, then God does play dice with the universe, and he throws them where no one can see . The devil, it seems, really is in the detail.

DeV.

I rarely quote myself ... but another thought occured to me.

Currently we are searching for the Higgs boson, which is referred (obviously incorrectly) as the God Particle.

All of physics is holding its breath because the Standard Model (which is the currently accepted model) predicts it at a particular energy level (of collision). If its there, thats a big predictive validation for the Standard Model. If its not, its absolute mayhem. Physics will be in disarray.

Will it be found? Some physicists say yes, some say no, others say "we dont have anything but speculation, lets do the tests".

Personally, I see theists and atheists in similar terms. Some say yes, some say no but for my money the ones who say "we cant make a pronouncement with certainty until we test" are the agnostics and are on the money.

While the atheists (standard model supporters) may have a lot of explanations as to why its there and a solid workable framework to support their supposition; and while the new physicists (deists) come off as a bunch of crackpots and wishful-thinkers, neither has any right to make a definitive statement at this time.

Now, the LHC will answer this question for us, in terms of physics, but there is no "test" for God at the moment. But the point still holds that no matter how more rational you feel your model is... its presumptive to dismiss it as a possibility, regardless how much you "believe" its a bunch of hooey.

You can say "right now we dont have one single shred of evidence to support the case for a God" thats true. I just feel its a step too far to say "and there isnt ever going to be any".

DeV.

ColmDawson

magicbastarder wrote: »

who created the aliens?

And why, syco, do you think you ought to believe something just because you prefer to believe it?

Herbal Deity

DeVore wrote: »

Personally, I see theists and atheists in similar terms. Some say yes, some say no but for my money the ones who say "we cant make a pronouncement with certainty until we test" are the agnostics and are on the money.

I've heard stuff like this many times.

Thing is, it's not as simple as Theism and Atheism, with Agnosticism in the middle.

And what it comes down to is Atheism is not the belief that a god doesn't exist, it is a lack of belief in a god.

The majority of those who say that they are atheists are in fact Agnostic Atheists.

I don't think one can be just "agnostic". I find people associate with the term to give the illusion of open mindedness, especially since the word "atheist" has some negative connotations these days. But if you don't have any belief in any deity, then you are an atheist. It's quite black and white.

ColmDawson

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I've heard stuff like this many times.

Thing is, it's not as simple as Theism and Atheism, with Agnosticism in the middle.

And what it comes down to is Atheism is not the belief that a god doesn't exist, it is a lack of belief in a god.

The majority of those who say that they are atheists are in fact Agnostic Atheists.

I don't think one can be just "agnostic". I find people associate with the term to give the illusion of open mindedness, especially since the word "atheist" has some negative connotations these days. But if you don't have any belief in any deity, then you are an atheist. It's quite black and white.

Yeah, I find people who say they're agnostic usually have the absurd idea that it's a 50/50 chance as to whether or not god (by the way, which one?) exists.

the_syco

magicbastarder wrote: »

who created the aliens?

Someone f**ked up with the timetravel device, sent an ape 9 trillion years into the past, and the ape then then created life when they evolved.

ColmDawson wrote: »

And why, syco, do you think you ought to believe something just because you prefer to believe it?

Ah sure why not. It makes as much sense in beliveing in aliens, as someone written about 100 years after he died.

magicbastarder

the_syco wrote: »

Someone f**ked up with the timetravel device, sent an ape 9 trillion years into the past, and the ape then then created life when they evolved.

i think i saw this on telly in an episode of futurama.

ColmDawson

the_syco wrote: »

Ah sure why not. It makes as much sense in beliveing in aliens, as someone written about 100 years after he died.

I don't think you'll find many around here who believe in that guy (or at least in his supernatural talents). So basically you're saying that your alien belief is as unfounded as believing in the divinity of Jesus? How is that a point in your favour?

Sorry if I'm sounding unnecessarily harsh.

Edit: Not sure if troll...

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think this is the best answer to the OP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqlauwX_ums

every time i see this thread now, i get this stuck in my head. i'm my own worst enemy.

Beruthiel

DeVore wrote: »

You can say "right now we dont have one single shred of evidence to support the case for a God" thats true.

Even if some all powerful being came alone and showed himself to be omnipotent, that still doesn't make him a god.
It just means Q does exist after all.

Joe1919

DeVore wrote: »

I rarely quote myself ... but another thought occured to me.

Currently we are searching for the Higgs boson, which is referred (obviously incorrectly) as the God Particle.

All of physics is holding its breath because the Standard Model (which is the currently accepted model) predicts it at a particular energy level (of collision). If its there, thats a big predictive validation for the Standard Model. If its not, its absolute mayhem. Physics will be in disarray.

Will it be found? Some physicists say yes, some say no, others say "we dont have anything but speculation, lets do the tests".

Personally, I see theists and atheists in similar terms. Some say yes, some say no but for my money the ones who say "we cant make a pronouncement with certainty until we test" are the agnostics and are on the money.

While the atheists (standard model supporters) may have a lot of explanations as to why its there and a solid workable framework to support their supposition; and while the new physicists (deists) come off as a bunch of crackpots and wishful-thinkers, neither has any right to make a definitive statement at this time.

Now, the LHC will answer this question for us, in terms of physics, but there is no "test" for God at the moment. But the point still holds that no matter how more rational you feel your model is... its presumptive to dismiss it as a possibility, regardless how much you "believe" its a bunch of hooey.

You can say "right now we dont have one single shred of evidence to support the case for a God" thats true. I just feel its a step too far to say "and there isnt ever going to be any".

DeV.

It would be interesting if this particle was found to be a 'zero' particle of some type. Then it may be true that we are all created from 'nothing' by the most powerful Being of nothingness and the infinite and absolute totally of all is this is 'nothing'.

The mind boggles....

Joe1919

ColmDawson wrote: »

No, I'm not. I'm saying that nature doesn't have feelings, so the connotations of sentience assigned to nature when you refer to it as a 'higher power' are misleading.

We are all part of Nature and we feel and so it could be argued that Nature (which contains us as a part) can feel.

Interestingly, Thales ( 500BC ) speculated that magnets may be conscious (have a soul) because they appeared to move. This is not unreasonable. Magnets have a sort of limited awareness (feeling) of their environment (magnetic lines of flux) and can respond and move to changes.
http://www.livius.org/th/thales/thales.html
Nowadays, there is the belief that humans may not be special in terms of consciousness except that we have a very advanced conscious mechanism (the brain).

Therefore it's not totally unreasonable for some to speculate that the whole of Nature or Cosmos has feeling or consciousness of a type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory

ColmDawson

Joe1919 wrote: »

We are all part of Nature and we feel

Yep. We and other living animals feel and perceive as individual creatures. There are many things that are part of nature that do not feel.

Joe1919 wrote: »

and so it could be argued that Nature (which contains us as a part) can feel.

Not really, no. At least, not while using the word 'Nature' in the same way that you used it in the first part of the sentence.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Interestingly, Thales ( 500BC ) speculated that magnets may be conscious (have a soul) because they appeared to move. This is not unreasonable. Magnets have a sort of limited awareness (feeling) of their environment (magnetic lines of flux) and can respond and move to changes. http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/grphil/Thales.htm

Nowadays, there is the belief that humans may not be special in terms of consciousness except that we have a very advanced conscious mechanism (the brain).

Therefore it's not totally unreasonable for some to speculate that the whole of Nature or Cosmos has feeling or consciousness of a type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory

Speculation can be not totally unreasonable and also be totally wrong.

Joe1919

ColmDawson wrote: »

Yep. We and other living animals feel and perceive as individual creatures. There are many things that are part of nature that do not feel.

But no man is an island. We have empathy and can feel for others. Even the seas 'feels' the pull of the moon (the tide).
We need to use our imagination and see the wider meanings. (A sort of 'Cosmic Consciousness')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_consciousness

ColmDawson

Joe1919 wrote: »

But no man is an island. We have empathy and can feel for others.

Yes, we feel for others, but we do that feeling as individuals. I can feel empathy, but I cannot feel simultaneous and/or identical emotion with someone else. This is because their central nervous system is not connected to mine.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Even the seas 'feels' the pull of the moon (the tide).

Again, you're using a word (in your last post it was 'nature', this time it's 'feels') in two different ways and then acting as if both meanings are interchangeable. Do I really need to point out to you that the process of 'feeling' effected by an animal's nervous system is not equatable with the process of the tide? The tide is, to quote Wikipedia, "caused by the combined effects of the gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun and the rotation of the Earth". To call this feeling and then to conflate it with the feeling experienced by animals is bordering on (probably unintentional) abuse of the English language.

Joe1919 wrote: »

We need to use our imagination and see the wider meanings. (A sort of 'Cosmic Consciousness')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_consciousness

Imagining things is all well and good, as long as you don't lose sight of which bits are and are not facts.

Dades

Beruthiel wrote: »

It just means Q does exist after all.

Him again...

You and Q - get a room!

Joe1919

ColmDawson wrote: »

...... that the process of 'feeling' effected by an animal's nervous system is not equatable with the process of the tide?.... .

That was the whole point of Thales discussion on the magnet having a soul. (that they are equatable). The magnet 'feels' the lines of magnetic flux. . Another name for this is Panpsychism.What exactly do we mean by 'feeling'? Does a plant for example have a 'feeling' mechanism when it responds to gravitational forces.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

The word 'feeling' and what we mean by consciousness is a huge philosophy of mind problem. These arguments have been going on for thousands of years. It unlikely that we will see a solution to them in our lifetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

Hence, we have to get on with life and accept the uncertainty and variance of opinion that others have.

ColmDawson

Joe1919 wrote: »

That was the whole point of Thales discussion on the magnet having a soul. The magnet feels the lines of magnetic flux. . Another name for this Panpsychism.What exactly do we mean by 'feeling'? Does a plant for example have a 'feeling' mechanism when it responds to gravitational forces.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

The word 'feeling' and what we mean by consciousness is a huge philosophy of mind problem. These arguments have been going on for thousands of years. It unlikely that we will see a solution to them in our lifetime.

Hence, we have to get on with life and accept the uncertainty and variance of opinion that others have.

I agree that it is a problem that there is one word for different things. You're not helping the problem by making them out to be almost the same. Plants, animals, magnets and oceans do not feel in the same way (and I would be extremely reluctant to be so generous as to say that magnets and oceans feel).

Joe1919

ColmDawson wrote: »

I agree that it is a problem that there is one word for different things. You're not helping the problem by making them out to be almost the same. Plants, animals, magnets and oceans do not feel in the same way (and I would be extremely reluctant to be so generous as to say that magnets and oceans feel).

I actually agree with you here and I have discussed this back in #36, but I was discussing it in a different context.

'In the first type, one is just directly aware of the object of consciousness.
In the second type, often called reflective awareness, one is also aware of the 'self' been aware of the object. i.e. one is aware of ones awareness. In this second type of awareness (reflective), one is very much conscious of the 'self' as part of the experience. It is thought that this second type of reflective awareness is more complex and may not be present in less intelligent creatures'
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67233866&postcount=36

In other words, humans have 'self-consciousness' and therefore are aware of their feelings. But again, we are heading for murky water with no clear way out and there are many theories on the self and emotions and feelings.

You are also right (imo) about our nervous system in a certain sense forming a unique boundary between the individual and the world. That part of us that feels physical pain is a unique part of the individual. But this then is making 'feelings' the basis for the self rather than our material bodies and we are getting into a sort of dualism. (Are our hair and nails and other parts that have no nervous system or feeling part of the self?) Also we need to distinguish between 'self' and 'sense of self'. Secondly, most of our suffering is mental and we seem to have this transcendental capacity to project ourselves in space (empathy) and time, into the past or future and mentally 'feel' pain in the form of worry, guilt, unfulfilled desire and fear.

Hence, people use certain language to express this, using words like 'transcendental' or speaking about the limits and boundaries of our Ego etc.

PS I'm not an expert in this stuff. I'm just making the point that one can be an atheist in the sense of not believing in a supernatural god and yet find this way of thinking lively and interesting and useful.

roosh

Saw this site and thought it would be somewhat relevant here.

goingpostal

I wish I was a chimpanzee. I would laugh at all those dumb humans.

Joe1919

Joe1919 wrote: »

Hence, people use certain language to express this, using words like 'transcendental' or speaking about the limits and boundaries of our Ego etc.

PS I will also add that there is no shortage of sorcerers, priests, sophists, witchdoctors etc. that use this language to mesmerise people and a huge amount of this language seems to be rubbish.
But I suppose 'all people by nature desire to know'.

ShooterSF

Not to be rude but what exactly, in layman's terms, is your point?

Are you suggesting we glue a consciousness onto the Universe? Or is it simply hinting we should respect our environment more lest it kick us in the ass? Or is it just a fun game of "twist the english language" and play on ambiguous words like feel and turn phrases like "mother nature" on it's head?

I don't get what you're getting at?

Joe1919

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not to be rude but what exactly, in layman's terms, is your point?

Are you suggesting we glue a consciousness onto the Universe? Or is it simply hinting we should respect our environment more lest it kick us in the ass? Or is it just a fun game of "twist the english language" and play on ambiguous words like feel and turn phrases like "mother nature" on it's head?

I don't get what you're getting at?

Sorry, I know this stuff is a bit heavy but it is central to some of the atheist arguments. Most atheists (e.g. Dawkins & Dennett) reject any idea of mind/body dualism. This means, if an account is to be giving of first person subjectivity, consciousness and feelings, it would seem that it must be given in terms of materialism. i.e. We must explain how material or systems of material 'feel' or else we must question this materialism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Mind.htm
http://books.google.ie/books?id=tAeFipOVx4MC&pg=PA118&dq=cambridge+companion+atheism+physicalism&hl=en&ei=CuZZTKDTMuLdsAad8-T8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

DublinWriter

I think the 'higher-power' concept is a nice little neat holding area into which we can put all those phenomena for which we haven't yet discovered the underlying laws of physics.

ColmDawson

DublinWriter wrote: »

I think the 'higher-power' concept is a nice little neat holding area into which we can put all those phenomena for which we haven't yet discovered the underlying laws of physics.

Is it not lazy and vague?

Goduznt Xzst

the_syco wrote: »

Although I believe in random chance, I prefer the though that we were created by aliens: it improves the chances that there are other life around the place.

ST:TNG - Season 6, Ep 20 "The Chase"

magicbastarder wrote: »

who created the aliens?

You're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's Aliens all the way down!