Reason vs Religion

[goldisheavy]

I liked this talk a great deal. Here Sam Harris uses reason to examine the situation we have with the big organized religions of the world. As usual, I almost never agree with anything 100% even if I think it's the best thing ever, and that's also the case here. However, I do think Harris says a lot of things really worth considering seriously.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6734321991450996691#

[RyanO]

Thanks for the link. I've seen snippets of this talk on youtube (it's a little old, from 07).

 

Sam Harris is the man. I also don't agree with him 100%, but loved The End Of Faith and Letter To A Christian Nation. Science and Religion is a complex topic, but no one does a better job of arguing against Fundamentalism and Dogmatism than Harris.

 

If you like this, check out some of his debates on his website ( http://www.samharris.org/ ) or just do a youtube search.

[baiqi]

Why oppose things that don't have to be in opposition?

[baiqi]

This being asked, I sure make a big difference with the three "religions of the Book" and the others.

[Marblehead]

Why oppose things that don't have to be in opposition?

 

What a very excellent question!!!

 

Is it because we have a need to compete?

 

Peace & Love!

[Birch]

Why shouldn't these things be opposed?

 

I didn't see the vids so maybe I missed something.

 

I believe I often underestimate the concrete results my beliefs have. Get that process going on a collective level and, well, all kinds of stuff happens.

 

Edit: Like religion, for example.

 

Edited for the post-script on religion.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Kate

[innerspace_cadet]

Sam Harris makes a lot of good points against religious dogmatism, but he sets up a lot of straw man arguments. He seems to make atheist "reason" the only alternative against "religion" but he doesn't recognize that religions do change over time; he makes "religion" out to be this fundamentalist boogeyman that is stuck in the iron age. Yes, the literal interpretation of these Biblical texts can lead to barbarism, but not everyone reads these texts in that way. Any passage of scripture can be "spiritualized" to use his term.

 

The 800 pound elephant in Sam Harris' argument is the fact that religion is not going to go away; human societies have had religion for at least 40,000 years, so why does he assume that reason is going to do away with the human propensity for religion any time soon? What he objects to primarily is fundamentalism, which is not a product of the iron age, but an overreaction to the modern world.

 

He makes a good point that morality is inherent in the human mind, as a result of evolution. But so is the propensity to impose patterns on random events and ascribe some mystical or divine agency behind them. Humans may be moral animals, but they are also religious animals.

[goldisheavy]

Sam Harris makes a lot of good points against religious dogmatism, but he sets up a lot of straw man arguments. He seems to make atheist "reason" the only alternative against "religion" but he doesn't recognize that religions do change over time;

 

Usually all positive changes in religious attitudes and behaviors come from external pressure. Religions themselves, rarely, if ever, change for the better on their own initiative, without getting a kick in the ass from the outside.

 

 

he makes "religion" out to be this fundamentalist boogeyman that is stuck in the iron age. Yes, the literal interpretation of these Biblical texts can lead to barbarism, but not everyone reads these texts in that way. Any passage of scripture can be "spiritualized" to use his term.

 

If you reinterpret the Bible in a more spiritual light, it's just as easy to switch back, to once again reinterpret the Bible in a more dogmatic light. The Bible is a terrible text because it's vague and not explicit when it comes to spirituality. It's pretty explicit when it comes to punishments and barbarity, and you have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to spiritualize it. Compare this with Buddhist sutras, which are spiritual, and to interpret Buddhist sutras in a dogmatic manner, you'd have to make a big effort.

 

He makes a good point that morality is inherent in the human mind, as a result of evolution. But so is the propensity to impose patterns on random events and ascribe some mystical or divine agency behind them. Humans may be moral animals, but they are also religious animals.

 

Humans, unlike other species, are far more diverse. Some humans are religious animals. Some aren't. Some are moral animals and some are not. The difference between the strongest human and the weakest is huge. The difference between the smartest human and the stupidest is huge. The difference between the fastest horse and the slowest is small. And the difference between the smartest horse and the stupidest is also small. Humans span the broadest range of any species. Humans are one species that can change the most through concerted training and contemplation. Sure, other animals can change through training too, but not as dramatically as a human.

[nac]

Is it because we have a need to compete?

Or is it the only way that we can be complete?

[RyanO]

Nice response to cadet, gold.

 

Harris has a problem not just with fundies, but also 'moderates' and religious liberals because they offer a kind of 'shade' for fundies as a barrier to criticism.

 

The Bible is an interesting piece of literature but to treat it like it was hand-written by Yahweh is absurd. Same with many other 'holy' texts. Moderates tip-toe around this notion. But without this premise, the entire religion becomes called into question. As gold points out, the Abrahamic faiths' holy texts are comparatively poor sources of spiritual wisdom, and if one thinks God didn't actually write them, why bother with them at all?

 

As for Harris, here is a link to my favorite video of his:

 

 

Here he is speaking to a conference of atheists, and rather than pandering to them, argues that 'atheism' is a label without content and is against it's use. Very interesting.

 

True religion won't go away, but it can evolve, and being 'tolerant' of invalid beliefs hinders its evolution. That said, I don't think Harris' approach is the best for accomplishing the conversion of fundies. This in particular is a difficult issue and one probably more relevant to the readers of this forum.

Edited April 19, 2010 by RyanO

[goldisheavy]

As for Harris, here is a link to my favorite video of his:

 

 

Here he is speaking to a conference of atheists, and rather than pandering to them, argues that 'atheism' is a label without content and is against it's use. Very interesting.

 

I loved this talk. That was great. Thank you!

[RyanO]

I loved this talk. That was great. Thank you!

 

Yeah, no prob. It’s an awesome video. It demonstrates Harris’ balance and sensitivity to spiritual insights.

 

I really wish I could have been there to ask him a question, and would love to engage him in dialogue. If I were there, my question would have been:

 

“I think the reason your talk might not be well received is more about philosophical differences than the strategies of the movement. I think there is a conflict between your metaphysical perspective and the metaphysical beliefs of most of the audience.

 

You said yourself that you are agnostic about metaphysical truths, while I imagine most here are firm materialists. And while it is true that you have stated nothing factual that disputes materialism, your interest in studying mystical insights implies a willingness to explore the possibility that consciousness is not limited to the brain. I think materialists feel threatened by that.

 

Arguing against fundamentalism and dogmatism in the Abrahamic religions is easy. Your books just happen to do that brilliantly. But the issue of materialism vs other metaphysical views is more difficult.

 

If you are open to the idea that consciousness exists apart from the brain, then you must allow for the possibility that our current scientific methodology is limited.

 

So my question is: You say you are still the same person who writes articles like ‘Science Must Destroy Religion.' But what do you mean by 'Science', and what do you mean by 'Religion'. Commonly speaking, science means a specific methodology, not just reason, and religion also means culture and philosophy, not just dogmatism. These terms have multifaceted uses and this title implies you are a firm materialist, and since you have said you are not, this means you are being dishonest.

 

Don’t you think, then, that having this materialist façade creates a barrier to conversation and honest exploration of spiritual and subjective subtleties? Don't you see how your approach is flawed in this way?”

 

Obviously this is a long question, not sure how I would have said it if I was there. But like I said, I would love to engage him in dialogue.

 

For those of you who wonder why he bothers, his concern is mostly about radical Islam. His approach is different in that he also criticizes liberals for providing divine legitimacy to books like the Bible and Quran (and legitimacy to fundamentalists by proxy). For example, from the books' perspective, fundamentalists are doing their job best. He advocates ‘conversational intolerance’ to people who believe in the God of the Bible and Quran, much like how the mainstream responds to pagans (eg. we would never have a president who professes belief in Zeus).

 

But yeah, it's a great talk. I could say a lot more, this is a huge topic.

Edited April 20, 2010 by RyanO

[Birch]

Wow! Thank you for that!

[goldisheavy]

If I were there, my question would have been:

 

“I think the reason your talk might not be well received is more about philosophical differences than the strategies of the movement. I think there is a conflict between your metaphysical perspective and the metaphysical beliefs of most of the audience.

 

You said yourself that you are agnostic about metaphysical truths, while I imagine most here are firm materialists. And while it is true that you have stated nothing factual that disputes materialism, your interest in studying mystical insights implies a willingness to explore the possibility that consciousness is not limited to the brain. I think materialists feel threatened by that.

 

Arguing against fundamentalism and dogmatism in the Abrahamic religions is easy. Your books just happen to do that brilliantly. But the issue of materialism vs other metaphysical views is more difficult.

 

If you are open to the idea that consciousness exists apart from the brain, then you must allow for the possibility that our current scientific methodology is limited.

 

So my question is: You say you are still the same person who writes articles like ‘Science Must Destroy Religion.' But what do you mean by 'Science', and what do you mean by 'Religion'. Commonly speaking, science means a specific methodology, not just reason, and religion also means culture and philosophy, not just dogmatism. These terms have multifaceted uses and this title implies you are a firm materialist, and since you have said you are not, this means you are being dishonest.

 

Don’t you think, then, that having this materialist façade creates a barrier to conversation and honest exploration of spiritual and subjective subtleties? Don't you see how your approach is flawed in this way?”

 

Obviously this is a long question, not sure how I would have said it if I was there. But like I said, I would love to engage him in dialogue.

 

That's one heck of a brilliant question, in my opinion. But I disagree with one thing though. I think religion absolutely implies dogmatism. If someone is not dogmatic, that same person cannot be said to be religious either. Pious maybe? Devout? I don't know, but not religious.

 

Think what it means when we say things like "I check the pressure in my tires religiously." It means "without the slightest deviation, with total adherence to the rule, without question." That's precisely the quality of dogmatism. Religionism implies dogmatism, but it is more than just dogmatism.

 

Other than that, I agree.

 

I think Harris has good arguments against religions, but he would have a devil of a time arguing against a knowledgeable, Nagarjuna-reading non-materialist atheist.

 

The way the word "atheist" is used these days, it seems to automatically imply materialism in addition to denying the deity. That's unfortunate. It seems to automatically exclude non-materialistic atheists from the spectrum of discussion.

Edited April 21, 2010 by goldisheavy

[dwai]

That's one heck of a brilliant question, in my opinion. But I disagree with one thing though. I think religion absolutely implies dogmatism. If someone is not dogmatic, that same person cannot be said to be religious either. Pious maybe? Devout? I don't know, but not religious.

 

Think what it means when we say things like "I check the pressure in my tires religiously." It means "without the slightest deviation, with total adherence to the rule, without question." That's precisely the quality of dogmatism. Religionism implies dogmatism, but it is more than just dogmatism.

 

Other than that, I agree.

 

I think Harris has good arguments against religions, but he would have a devil of a time arguing against a knowledgeable, Nagarjuna-reading non-materialist atheist.

 

The way the word "atheist" is used these days, it seems to automatically imply materialism in addition to denying the deity. That's unfortunate. It seems to automatically exclude non-materialistic atheists from the spectrum of discussion.

 

Just finished watching a loooong debate between Sam harris + Michael Shermer vs Deepak Chopra and another lady (no sexist innuendo pls, I have simply forgotten her name). Both Harris and Shermer came across as down and right rigid Sciencopaths (for lack of a better word) and their argumentation for the primacy of matter would not hold water in a proper philosophical debate with experts of Eastern Philosophy, especially those with an Advaita Vedanta or Madhyamika background. Chopra is somewhat Advaitin or Madhyamika, but is neither in totality. And he was too much of an aggressor/victim to be an effective debater.

 

 

[RyanO]

Gold: I hear what you’re saying. I didn’t really say that religion can be totally divorced from dogma, just that there is so much more to it than that. Dogma in its purest sense is necessary for really any approach to the world. The problem with many religions is that they cling to dangerous dogmas. As you say, religion implies devotion in some sense, but such devotion can be directed toward a reasonable dogma and still be called religion.

 

So instead of ‘Science Must Destroy Religion”, it could be ‘Reason Must Destroy Dangerous Dogma.’ But that’s not as catchy.

 

I agree about the conflation of atheism and materialism. I think a lot of atheists miss this one. Still, ‘God’ has been expanded to mean universal consciousness for many religious liberals. I think God language is not the best but universal consciousness is what many people think when they hear ‘God’. So in that sense, atheism and materialism go hand in hand.

 

Can you help me understand a little about what you mean by non-materialist atheist, seen in this light? I think it all depends on how one defines 'God'. If 'God' is a personal being with agency then I hear you, but many religious liberals define God as the sum total of all reality, pretty hard to argue against that! Many atheists are uncomfortable about the idea of 'something more' which is why they tend to be firm materialists.

 

So yeah, the materialist/idealist debate is much more difficult and interesting than theist/atheist one. Though it is fun to hear Harris’ polemics against fundamentalism.

 

 

Dwai: I saw that talk as well, it’s pretty recent. The whole thing is almost a little silly. I really wish I could be part of that debate! Maybe in the lady’s place, she was forgettable and didn’t add much.

 

I agree with you, Deepak was not composed at all. He could have done a much better job. I loved the part where Harris tells him that saying something loudly and relentlessly doesn’t make it true.

 

But I disagree with what you said about Harris and Shermer. I don’t think there was a part where Harris at least argued for the primacy of matter (if there is let me know). He is avowedly agnostic about materialism. He just thinks that reason is the most useful tool we have for challenging dangerous ideas. He is basically a utilitarian, and might be construed as rigid because he’s tired of people giving credence to blatantly absurd religions. His opinions on mysticism and sophisticated spirituality are more fluid.

Edited April 21, 2010 by RyanO

[goldisheavy]

Gold: I hear what you’re saying. I didn’t really say that religion can be totally divorced from dogma, just that there is so much more to it than that. Dogma in its purest sense is necessary for really any approach to the world.

 

Maybe. I am on the fence about this statement.

 

The problem with many religions is that they cling to dangerous dogmas. As you say, religion implies devotion in some sense, but such devotion can be directed toward a reasonable dogma and still be called religion.

 

I didn't say that at all. Here's what I said:

 

If someone is not dogmatic, that same person cannot be said to be religious either. Pious maybe? Devout? I don't know, but not religious.

 

So what I was really talking about is a person who might claim to be religious, but upon closer examination, is not dogmatic. In that case, I would "deny" the right to use the label "religious" to that person.

 

I think both dogmatic and non-dogmatic person can use some dogma. The difference is in how they relate to it. For a dogmatic person dogma is unquestionable, untouchable, holy even. For a non-dogmatic person dogma is subject to questioning, it is something that has to be examined under the light of reason from time to time, to see if anything better has come along. And this is a spectrum. So there are people who are more flexible and more readily willing to perform a re-examination. The more the person is willing to re-examine dogma, the less dogmatic that person is.

 

In this way of understanding things, scientists can be seen as using dogmas, but relative to religious dogmatists, we wouldn't call them dogmatic. However, relative to a spiritual person who is about to reach a break through, who is actively examining every single belief, including all core beliefs, such a scientist would be very dogmatic. It is relative and there is a continuum of dogmatism just like there is a continuum of flexibility. Just like flexibility is not an either/or proposition, neither is dogmatism to my mind.

 

So instead of ‘Science Must Destroy Religion”, it could be ‘Reason Must Destroy Dangerous Dogma.’ But that’s not as catchy.

 

This would be less confrontational though. It's a ticklish gamble:

 

"Should I get more, but lower quality, supporters by using catchy slogans, or should I get fewer, but higher quality, supporters by using more honest slogans." I am not convinced that more people results in an automatic win. As an example, Republican party has catered to ultra-conservative racist homophobic Christians, and now their popularity and social acceptance is eroding. I don't have a crystal ball and I cannot see into the future, but it looks like right now the strategy of "more but lower quality" has not served Republicans well. So I don't have any reason to believe it will serve the atheist movement well either.

 

I agree about the conflation of atheism and materialism. I think a lot of atheists miss this one. Still, ‘God’ has been expanded to mean universal consciousness for many religious liberals. I think God language is not the best but universal consciousness is what many people think when they hear ‘God’. So in that sense, atheism and materialism go hand in hand.

 

No matter how you define God, atheism shouldn't be conflated with materialism. I do agree that 'God' concept can be used more skillfully than religious doctrines tend to use it, but no matter how skillfully you use that concept, it's better to avoid using it altogether.

 

Can you help me understand a little about what you mean by non-materialist atheist, seen in this light?

 

Non-materialist atheist is someone who reject the idea of deity, and also rejects the idea of substance. If we do some mental gymnastic and redefine God to mean mind, then I would have to call myself simply a non-materialist. I wouldn't be qualified for the "atheist" label, since believing in mind would make me a theist under such alternative definition of 'God'.

 

If you want to embrace all possible definitions of God, then I would have to redefine what it means to be a non-materialist atheist to this:

 

Someone who doesn't find the idea of substance to be an ultimately true idea, and also doesn't find the 'God' language to be spiritually most efficient.

 

I think it all depends on how one defines 'God'. If 'God' is a personal being with agency then I hear you, but many religious liberals define God as the sum total of all reality, pretty hard to argue against that! Many atheists are uncomfortable about the idea of 'something more' which is why they tend to be firm materialists.

 

I hear you. Under the more flexible definition of 'God' I would have to lose the label of 'atheist'. I actually wouldn't have a problem with that if I was convinced the more flexible definition was the most commonly used one. I don't care to be called 'atheist' per se. I also agree with Harris that the label 'atheist' is philosophically problematic.

 

So yeah, the materialist/idealist debate is much more difficult and interesting than theist/atheist one. Though it is fun to hear Harris’ polemics against fundamentalism.

 

Non-materialist is not the same thing as idealist.

Edited April 21, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

Can I ask a bunch of questions?

What would happen to you if:

 

- your definition of God changed?

- you entirely dropped your definition of God?

 

What I'm often coming back to when I do this - although not with god very often, sometimes I do it to myself in practice - which feels horrible most of the time BTW - except the occasional "bliss-dude" moment - is "I don't know".

 

And I wonder for myself what this has to do with reason? Maybe nothing at all. Maybe reason would help me to cease this ridiculous discoursing, practicing and training?

 

I'm feeling pretty vague today which is almost a perfect state for me to attempt the ideas I have to offer. The arguments are not as well-constructed as GIH and others but I'm training it, so please forgive.

 

As long as we expect to be able to use words to say a specific thing in a consistent manner, why so much jostling around the definitions? Aren't the definitions already immutable? I suspect so much of the outcome of the arguments depend on whether they are or not.

 

If the definitions are mutable, to whose service are they offered? Are they offered to the service of whoever can display the finest reasonable argument? Or perhaps, who has the most supporters of the endgame he or she is attempting? Who decides who wins?

 

I was reading Sam Harris today on his website where he responds to critics after his latest TED talk. The guy is very brilliant and I look at him and go "wow, I should learn this stuff!" While at the same time I find some of the things underlying his discourse somewhat disturbing. Maybe I didn't understand enough and it's hard to put my finger on right now but some ideas are sort of percolating. Not all of them very good. I had a bad gut feeling about some of them. Now of course, science may soon tell me my gut is worthless as an indicator of anything.

 

What was that quote "The five colours blind the eyes" or something? I'm sure I got it wrong. But the general meaning is that there are in fact many more than 5 colours, but saying there are only five makes us blind to the others.

[goldisheavy]

Can I ask a bunch of questions?

What would happen to you if:

 

- your definition of God changed?

 

I'm open to varying definitions. Nothing in particular would happen to me. I would need to adjust what I am saying about God based on how the definition changed. That's not too big of an imposition.

 

- you entirely dropped your definition of God?

 

How does that work? If I had no definition of God at all, then anytime I heard other people talking about God, I would have no idea what they were talking about. This could put me at a disadvantage, since I care about people and want to be able to communicate with them (at least right now, who knows about the future?).

 

What I'm often coming back to when I do this - although not with god very often, sometimes I do it to myself in practice - which feels horrible most of the time BTW - except the occasional "bliss-dude" moment - is "I don't know".

 

And I wonder for myself what this has to do with reason? Maybe nothing at all. Maybe reason would help me to cease this ridiculous discoursing, practicing and training?

 

Reason is a faculty that generates insight. I think it's possible, with sufficient insight, to simply feel no need to think. I don't know this for 100% sure, but that's what my intuition is telling me. The less insight I have, the harder I need to think and the more copious my thinking is. I doubt this can enter the extreme of absolute non-thinking though. I think even with the best insight, thinking would become very slow and relaxed, but it wouldn't be reduced to zero.

 

I'm feeling pretty vague today which is almost a perfect state for me to attempt the ideas I have to offer. The arguments are not as well-constructed as GIH and others but I'm training it, so please forgive.

 

As long as we expect to be able to use words to say a specific thing in a consistent manner, why so much jostling around the definitions? Aren't the definitions already immutable? I suspect so much of the outcome of the arguments depend on whether they are or not.

 

How can definitions be immutable? I don't think I understand what you mean. As far as I can tell, we have a conventionally accepted set of definitions, like for example in the dictionary. And then we also have the power and the freedom to define things between ourselves for the purpose of each discussion. Even dictionary definitions tend to drift over great periods of time. Some concepts become archaic and die off. Others become introduced. I think that language is a living and breathing organ.

 

There are many possible reasons to jostle so much around definitions. For example, if you are enamored of a concept, then some definitions are more conducive to getting that concept accepted, and others are less. So personal preference for some concepts is a good enough reason to try to keep the conversation centered around the best definition you can think of. Another reason people can be found jostling around definitions is when someone is using two or three subtly different definitions of something throughout the argument. It's an underhanded technique that allows to change the definition of something so that each time you can argue against a slightly "straw-man-ized" version of the concept, instead of arguing against the real deal each time.

 

Another way to think of definitions is framing. Whoever controls framing in a discussion controls the discussion. So framing a discussion sets up the table for that discussion, and by being a master of framing, you can make sure the table is tilted in your favor.

 

If the definitions are mutable, to whose service are they offered? Are they offered to the service of whoever can display the finest reasonable argument? Or perhaps, who has the most supporters of the endgame he or she is attempting? Who decides who wins?

 

You want the real answer to this?

 

Definitions exist in your service.

 

Who decides who wins? You do.

 

You do it all the time. You may not be aware of this. You might think you're a tiny little mouse of no consequence, but deep down you determine who is right and who is wrong, which line of thinking you will take up and which abandon, which action you'll take and which one you will not take. People can flash all manner of credentials to you, and even the entire society can arrange itself before you in lines, millions upon millions of people, and announce upon you: we say the sky is blue, but ultimately you are the one who either accepts or rejects this.

 

The reason we feel so much difficulty in standing up against convention though is because we define who we are as people through convention. We define our egos in relation with other egos. Our egos are completely intertwined with the egos of all humanity. This is why it's not easy to stand up to someone, because every time you do so, you are being somewhat self-destructive. It's not the total truth. It seems like you are destroying yourself if you define yourself in terms of other people and this world and nothing else, but if the more you define yourself as something else and the less you entwine your own self-image with the images of other people and this world, the less it feels like destruction when you stand up to others or disagree with them. One should be cautious here though, because this way there is a possibility of complete disconnection from humanity.

 

I was reading Sam Harris today on his website where he responds to critics after his latest TED talk. The guy is very brilliant and I look at him and go "wow, I should learn this stuff!" While at the same time I find some of the things underlying his discourse somewhat disturbing. Maybe I didn't understand enough and it's hard to put my finger on right now but some ideas are sort of percolating. Not all of them very good. I had a bad gut feeling about some of them. Now of course, science may soon tell me my gut is worthless as an indicator of anything.

 

When this happens to me, I just relax and pay attention. As days and weeks go by, I return to that gut feeling and try to feel it again. As I keep getting in touch with it, eventually I am able to articulate in words how I feel. And then I also begin to understand why I feel like this. Sometimes it takes me months to get some subtle feelings into words.

 

What was that quote "The five colours blind the eyes" or something? I'm sure I got it wrong. But the general meaning is that there are in fact many more than 5 colours, but saying there are only five makes us blind to the others.

 

Yea. It's the danger of language. One color also blinds the eye. I think we just have to be careful and do our best.

Edited April 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

First - Kate and Gold thanks for this discussion - very interesting.

 

Second - definitions .... I was once taught that we don't define things we define the limits of the application of terms. So in other words instead of saying 'what is X?' we would be better saying 'to what can I properly apply the term X?' For instance for the word (and it is just a word after all) 'god' - to what can I properly apply this term? 'Properly' here suggesting 'usefully and appropriately'.

 

So maybe for a pagan the word god could be applied in many ways through a spectrum from some cosmically significant power to the spirit of a tree (and not even 'god of trees' but the god of a specific tree). If we consider the universe to be founded on spirit then this pagan way of using the term god doesn't seem to cause any problems. If we are materialist then we might say 'all I see is a tree, I don't recognize any god.' In fact there would be no circumstances in which a materialist would chose to apply the term god.

 

When we get on to God rather than god some problems start. This is because monotheism is a concealed dualism which always wants to produce the equation God=Absolute, even though Absolute would, to be absolute, have to apply to not-God as well as God. The elevation of the term God in this way is I think really a product of insecurity as the monotheists do not like to think that there is anything greater or higher than that to which they believe they have a personal relationship. I recognize this feeling of wanting somehow to make the final statement about what is real and all powerful - but as Lao Tse said this is a mistake because as soon as you name it ... apply a term ... then this is not the true Tao or Absolute.

 

I believe that mystics (and I use this term as broadly as possible to include all practitioners, cultivators, meditators) have the advantage in that we accept the mysterious as valid. We prefer penetration of the mystery to dogma and we embrace uncertainty because in it is revealed the tremulation of real power and in that the immediacy of our relation to it.

 

I would like to discuss the Void also because much is written on here and elsewhere about emptiness which is in my view as misleading as all this talk of God.

 

Cheers

 

John

[C T]

Hats off to all contributors here - great questions asked, greater insights offered. Much to be grateful for. Thanks.

[RyanO]

Nice thoughts John (and gold and Kate).

 

Anselm's 'proof' of God is basically that because 'being' is greater than 'non-being' (which is debatable I might add) then the greatest thing possible, God, must exist.

 

What's funny to me about monotheistic apologetics is that people have these fancy philosophical proofs of God, but then jump to 'So He must have written the Bible.'

 

Your point about monotheistic dualism is spot on. In fact, it's what separates these traditions from much of Eastern spirituality. Do we live in a fallen creation separate from God? Monotheism: yes. Eastern (and often Western) mysticism: no. In the former, something is fundamentally wrong in the universe, but in the latter, everything is one and perfect as it is (with a flexible definition of perfection).

 

The Void or Emptiness, as you say, is another fascinating metaphysical idea. I like to think of it practically like the flow that comes from unkinking a hose. I incorporate this image in my qigong practice with respect to my energy channels. I also use my awe of Emptiness as fuel for my Inner Smile, which also helps clear stagnation and aids flow.

 

This is an example of how seemingly pie-in-the-sky metaphysics can have gritty real life application. People often miss this practical aspect and it is very important.

 

Anyways, just some thoughts. Happy Earth Day!

Edited April 22, 2010 by RyanO