Chuang Tzu Chapter 4, Section B

[Marblehead]

 So yes, I agree that "we humans have an innate tendency for religion."

I so much don't like that but, you know, it can likely be scientifically proven to be mostly a true statement.

 

But I will continue to live in denial of the statement.

[Marblehead]

the assumption of science ,is that its not dependent upon ones individual preference or bias.

Yes, that is the way it is "supposed" to be.

[dust]

the assumption of science ,is that its not dependent upon ones individual preference or bias.

 

Another assumption is that it is 'better' not to rely on one's individual preference, right? Otherwise why bother?

 

 

I so much don't like that but, you know, it can likely be scientifically proven to be mostly a true statement.

 

But I will continue to live in denial of the statement.

 

Well, your dogma isn't as dangerous as many others'...

Edited May 16, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Stosh]

Another assumption is that it is 'better' not to rely on one's individual preference, right?

I suppose I agree but I am not sure what you mean. Someone else can repeat what we did in an experiment. See the same results. Show folks the connections. As far as betterness goes, I dont know what youre saying.
If you can make a giant mental leap which obviates years of fruitless experiment,and get the working answer. I suppose thats better for the individual,,though for everyone else, its best to be able to follow with confidence, and the groundwork needs to have been provided.

 

 

 

admin: fix quote

Edited May 18, 2015 by dawei

[Stosh]

Sam found himself in a big enclosure of humgry lions. There was a big lock on the door and a six foot pile of assorted keys next to it. First he comes up with a hypothesis, that the correct key will be big. He grabs the big keys and tests them on the lock. Thats science. Then as the lions approach he just starts grabbing keys at random and frantically tries to force one to work. Thats empirical investigation. As the lions get closer still... he starts throwing keys at the lions hoping it will keep them at bay, and prays to everything he can think of ,to get him the hell out of there. Thats religion.

[dust]

I suppose what I mean is that for many people there is an assumption that applying the scientific method is always preferable to not applying it; that we should not rely on the human monkey-mind or intuition, but make sure everything is described and predicted with charts and experiments so that we can reduce all risk and continue to 'improve' things.

 

In my opinion, the scientific method is brilliant and we have some really cool stuff as a product of it. But we also have some really not cool stuff. And one of my goals in life is to rely less on careful logic and more on intuition.

 

.. does that make sense?

[Stosh]

I suppose what I mean is that for many people there is an assumption that applying the scientific method is always preferable to not applying it; that we should not rely on the human monkey-mind or intuition, but make sure everything is described and predicted with charts and experiments so that we can reduce all risk and continue to 'improve' things.

 

In my opinion, the scientific method is brilliant and we have some really cool stuff as a product of it. But we also have some really not cool stuff. And one of my goals in life is to rely less on careful logic and more on intuition.

 

 

.. does that make sense?

 

Sure I think that makes sense. Science is very slow, very tentative, and it lacks spontaneity. No one is scientific all the time. The method of it provides no impetus for anything. Following ones intuition heavily, can be really exciting and personal.

 

 

 

Admin: fix quote

Edited May 17, 2015 by dawei

[Stosh]

I suppose what I mean is that for many people there is an assumption that applying the scientific method is always preferable to not applying it; that we should not rely on the human monkey-mind or intuition, but make sure everything is described and predicted with charts and experiments so that we can reduce all risk and continue to 'improve' things.

 

 

.. does that make sense?

Actually I was trying to show in my little story,,, if it sounds like a a plausible progression.. That one doesnt really abide by one methodology...mindset exclusively. So its not an always scenario.

 

If you need your car keys, do you pray to god or draw a chart? No , you look around for them.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

I suppose what I mean is that for many people there is an assumption that applying the scientific method is always preferable to not applying it; that we should not rely on the human monkey-mind or intuition, but make sure everything is described and predicted with charts and experiments so that we can reduce all risk and continue to 'improve' things.

 

In my opinion, the scientific method is brilliant and we have some really cool stuff as a product of it. But we also have some really not cool stuff.

 

.. does that make sense?

Yes, but it sounds so freaking boring.

 

And one of my goals in life is to rely less on careful logic and more on intuition.

Now your talking.

 

(Hehehe.  We need to be ready to accept our failures and bad mistakes though.  Intuition is a funny thing.  But fun none the less.)

[Rara]

Let's not forget, if we have an agenda, we can use any kind of scientific evidence as a way to support a biased argument. Even if it's quite untrue.

 

Look at how marijuana is portrayed in the media. Science "proves" it causes schizophrenia. I look around and find very few schiz pot smokers, if any. I find just as many schiz non-pot smokers.

 

Swings and roundabouts, but again I must use this term - it's all subjective to what one wants out of it. If somebody wants something a certain way, they will always argue for it, regardless. And if science proves it, then great, there's one for the argument!

 

This is why I like what was said about religion, I think by Darkstar. The fact that it is always desired by man anyway. Whether it is as extreme as worshiping a man in the sky or being a Tao bum...we still desire to fill some for of void.

 

In other words, we all just need something to do.

[Rara]

PS Marblehead, the above is why I bat for the "atheism as a religion" team...because it is still a form of belief.

 

That said, I could accuse you of being agnostic for your slight mystical curiosity.

 

That, or you're not really an atheist and couldn't care less. Then I could label you apathetic.

 

But whatever....I'm apathetic, sometimes agnostic, other times atheist. Depends what mood I'm in. I can also firmly say that I have many firm beliefs from the "well duh" category. My main one here is consciousness and/more superior forces that are beyond my power.

 

I have a conscience, I can't help that fact. I will die one day...I cannot stop that happening. So in this regard, there is a God, right? Or Tao...whatever the term is, it's all interchangeable.

 

Ask me if there is a God though, and I will often say hell no. Or more appropriately - "depends what you mean by God"

[Marblehead]

PS as in Personal Slander?  Hehehe.

PS Marblehead, the above is why I bat for the "atheism as a religion" team...because it is still a form of belief.

No.  You are still fixed with believing stuff.  Atheism is the lack of belief.

 

That said, I could accuse you of being agnostic for your slight mystical curiosity.

I have been accused of many things during my lifetime.  I have never been charged with any of them.

 

That, or you're not really an atheist and couldn't care less. Then I could label you apathetic.

Yeah, the older I get the more apathetic I get.  I think it has something to do with getting tired of other people's bullshit.

 

But whatever....I'm apathetic, sometimes agnostic, other times atheist. Depends what mood I'm in. I can also firmly say that I have many firm beliefs from the "well duh" category. My main one here is consciousness and/more superior forces that are beyond my power.

Yeah, I guess most need a superior power; someone to look up to.  The other day I was talking with a guy who stood about 6 feet, 11 inches and we were on level ground so I had to look up to him.  If he was going to stay long I would have gotten one of my ladders out so he would have had to look up to me.

 

I have a conscience, I can't help that fact. I will die one day...I cannot stop that happening. So in this regard, there is a God, right? Or Tao...whatever the term is, it's all interchangeable.

Circular logic.  I've been seeing a lot of this lately.  Is it a new fad?

 

The fact that you will one day die only means that one day you will die.  That's all.  Sure, we could say that it also means that death follows life.  But then, if there were no more life there would be no more death.

 

 

Ask me if there is a God though, and I will often say hell no. Or more appropriately - "depends what you mean by God"

Yeah, you would likely say "depends on what you mean by god".

 

But then, you might get cocky and respond with "How the F*** am I supposed to know?"

[Rara]

PS as in Personal Slander? Hehehe.

No. You are still fixed with believing stuff. Atheism is the lack of belief.

 

...

 

Circular logic. I've been seeing a lot of this lately. Is it a new fad?

 

The fact that you will one day die only means that one day you will die. That's all. Sure, we could say that it also means that death follows life. But then, if there were no more life there would be no more death.

 

 

A lack of belief in God...but therefore a belief that there is no God. Because you cannot prove it, surely this is your belief system?

 

I know, I know, we will go round in circles with this one.

 

...

 

On circular logic - maybe it is a fad...though I like to think it came to me. Maybe I've picked it up along the way somehow...however, I certainly see it as a good way of describing my "understanding".

 

And yeah, sure death only really means death. That's all that happens. But my point is that, as I cannot control when I am born, or when I die (bar suicide but of course, we won't go there ... I actually think I'd be incapable of this also haha) This says to me that something is dictating my life. Whether it's God or just my brain, I am not bigger than either of them.

 

I lack control...I just do what my brain tells me to do. I'm not free from that...

Edited May 17, 2015 by Rara

[Marblehead]

A lack of belief in God...but therefore a belief that there is no God. Because you cannot prove it, surely this is your belief system?

 

I know, I know, we will go round in circles with this one.

Hehehe.  That's almost like saying Atheism is a religion (belief system). 

 

So it's okay to believe in things that no one can prove doesn't exist?  Unlimited!

 

This says to me that something is dictating my life. Whether it's God or just my brain, I am not bigger than either of them.

 

I lack control...I just do what my brain tells me to do. I'm not free from that...

Hey!, if it works for you then great. 

 

(But we can tell our brain to buzz off when it goes places we don't want to go.)

[Geof Nanto]

Here is an outline of Daoist theology as delineated by Louis Komjathy…..

 

Before examining Daoist theology, it is also helpful to understand the various types of theology, with some modifications in order to make space for non-theistic views in a comparative framework. We may identify at least the following theologies: animistic, atheistic, monistic, monotheistic, panenhenic, pantheistic, panentheistic, and polytheistic. Animisitic theologies hold that nature is populated by personal gods and/or spiritual entities. Such deities and spirits tend to be place-specific. Although resistant to such designations, atheistic theology, which is technically anti-theological, denies the existence of gods, especially the Abrahamic god ("God"). Monistic theologies hold that there is one impersonal Reality. Monotheistic theologies hold that there is one supreme, personal god, usually with conventional attributes of personhood and agency (e.g. God the Creator, God the Father). Panenhenic theology holds that Nature as a whole is sacred. Pantheistic theology claims that the sacred is in the world, that the world is a manifestation of the sacred. Because this creates certain theological problems, such as the diminishment of the sacred through extinction, some theological discourse tends towards panentheism, that is, that the sacred is in and beyond the world. Under this view, there is both an immanent (world-affirming) and transcendent (world-negating) aspect. Finally, polytheistic theology is belief in many gods. These various theologies may not be mutually exclusive or necessarily irreconcilable.

 

The primary Daoist theology is monistic, panenhenic, and panentheistic. Daoist theology is secondarily animistic and polytheistic. Daoist theology centers, first and foremost, on the Dao (Tao). The Dao is the sacred and ultimate concern of Daoists. 

[Geof Nanto]

Many thinkers have tried to define what religion is, but it seems it ultimately defies any neat characterisation. According to Wikipedia, the typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a "belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods" or the "service and worship of God or the supernatural". However, writers and scholars have expanded upon the "belief in god" definitions as insufficient to capture the diversity of religious thought and experience. The article goes on to state that there are numerous definitions of religion and lists several  prominent ones.  See   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

However, perhaps most tellingly,  the section concludes with the statement:  An increasing number of scholars have expressed reservations about ever defining the "essence" of religion.

 

All the Wikipedia listed definitions are interesting, but I particularly like William James definition from The Varieties of Religious of Religious Experiences. For James, the institutions of religion are highly secondary. They bore or offend James, as they do for many of us.  

 

“Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual, it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it, theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may secondarily grow.”

 

I’d rephrase James’ wording as follows…

 

Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individuals in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the sacred.

 

As for Komjathy, the key word here, to my mind,  is sacred.  That is the pertinent question for me. What do I consider sacred? Do I consider anything sacred? I have thought further on the topic but before I continue I’m interested to hear what others think.

[dust]

Sacred sanctity, holy holiness, revered reverence.. hmm..

 

I suppose I revere existence, insofar as I find it quite spectacular. I often come over quite astonished at the fact that I seem to be alive and having experience.

 

I wouldn't say that I hold it, or anything else, sacred. I feel no need to bow down to any particular concept or 'thing' and whisper a thousand passionate "Thank you"s..

[Geof Nanto]

Sacred sanctity, holy holiness, revered reverence.. hmm..

 

I suppose I revere existence, insofar as I find it quite spectacular. I often come over quite astonished at the fact that I seem to be alive and having experience.

 

I wouldn't say that I hold it, or anything else, sacred. I feel no need to bow down to any particular concept or 'thing' and whisper a thousand passionate "Thank you"s..

 

Yes, all these terms tend to have a strong emotional charge, thanks to the very chequered history of religious institutions; many negatives, such as their dogma, hypocrisy, and will to power. But for me 'sacred' does not imply the "need to bow down to any particular concept or 'thing' and whisper a thousand passionate "Thank you"s.." Nothing like that. It does imply a certain humility though; seeing myself my own size in relationship to the enormity of existence.

 

[dawei]

I had to go back and figure out how 'religion' came into this thread...

 

However to my observation we humans have an innate tendency for religion. (Religion definition from Wikipedia: A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.) Those who disdain traditional religions often align themselves with contemporary quasi-religious movements. In my country the Greens are an excellent example. But perhaps the most pervasive quasi-religion centres around science. Whilst the scientific method is undoubtedly a powerful determinant of certain types of truth, faith in its universality amounts to scientism.

 

I sometimes wonder if this focus is too modern and we end up in revisionist mode of the past.   My observation is that most ancient cultures looked to the working of the celestial movements and were 'organized' only in this regard and seeking to understand the 'source' of it [all].    I think later, as religious ideas/ideals formed, we now call all this a tendency for religion.

 

But if we are to appreciate the earliest daoist ideas, even putting aside labels like 'classical daoism', it still seems inescapable to me that something quite spiritual existed before religious affection.

 

I’d rephrase James’ wording as follows…

 

Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individuals in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the sacred.

 

I think that is a little better... but I'm not that fond of 'sacred' either.

 

Sacred sanctity, holy holiness, revered reverence.. hmm..

 

Maybe jump into LZ29 and share your interpretation...

http://thedaobums.com/topic/17825-ttc-study-chapter-29-of-the-tao-teh-ching/?p=252652

[dust]

Yes, all these terms tend to have a strong emotional charge, thanks to the very chequered history of religious institutions; many negatives, such as their dogma, hypocrisy, and will to power. But for me 'sacred' does not imply the "need to bow down to any particular concept or 'thing' and whisper a thousand passionate "Thank you"s.."

 

I suppose not. Thinking of the type of thing that someone or other might consider sacred, it's not all about thanks.

 

From a Christian/Islamic/Jewish monotheistic perspective, though, it's also not just about awe and humility. Looking at the various cognates -- sanctity, sanctify, sacrilege, sacrosanct -- I think that in English, and in relation to the monotheistic religions at least, it has something to do with being set apart, to the extent that there is even a place to put sacred things (a sacristy)

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=sacred&searchmode=none

 

Does, perhaps, the English/Christian sense of the word conflict with its use when talking of the monistic/panenhenic/panentheistic sides of Daoism? In which case we'd need another word, I think.

 

edit: ooh, and I forgot "sacrifice" as another cognate..

 

 

Maybe jump into LZ29 and share your interpretation...

http://thedaobums.com/topic/17825-ttc-study-chapter-29-of-the-tao-teh-ching/?p=252652

 

Will do sometime later

Edited May 18, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Rara]

So it's okay to believe in things that no one can prove doesn't exist? Unlimited!

 

Everything's ok I think what youbare trying to say is "how can I believe in something that isn't there to believe in?" ...please correct me if I'm wrong...

[Rara]

(But we can tell our brain to buzz off when it goes places we don't want to go.)

Further into the derail, as I've spoken about before, there is neuroscientific research to suggest that this is an illusion and that such decisions are already made before we are consciously aware of them.

 

So if the brain has gone somewhere we don't want it to go, and we snap back round to where we do want it to go, perhaps this move was inevitable anyway. Hmmmm....

[Rara]

Here is an outline of Daoist theology as delineated by Louis Komjathy…..

 

Before examining Daoist theology, it is also helpful to understand the various types of theology, with some modifications in order to make space for non-theistic views in a comparative framework. We may identify at least the following theologies: animistic, atheistic, monistic, monotheistic, panenhenic, pantheistic, panentheistic, and polytheistic. Animisitic theologies hold that nature is populated by personal gods and/or spiritual entities. Such deities and spirits tend to be place-specific. Although resistant to such designations, atheistic theology, which is technically anti-theological, denies the existence of gods, especially the Abrahamic god ("God"). Monistic theologies hold that there is one impersonal Reality. Monotheistic theologies hold that there is one supreme, personal god, usually with conventional attributes of personhood and agency (e.g. God the Creator, God the Father). Panenhenic theology holds that Nature as a whole is sacred. Pantheistic theology claims that the sacred is in the world, that the world is a manifestation of the sacred. Because this creates certain theological problems, such as the diminishment of the sacred through extinction, some theological discourse tends towards panentheism, that is, that the sacred is in and beyond the world. Under this view, there is both an immanent (world-affirming) and transcendent (world-negating) aspect. Finally, polytheistic theology is belief in many gods. These various theologies may not be mutually exclusive or necessarily irreconcilable.

 

The primary Daoist theology is monistic, panenhenic, and panentheistic. Daoist theology is secondarily animistic and polytheistic. Daoist theology centers, first and foremost, on the Dao (Tao). The Dao is the sacred and ultimate concern of Daoists.

Cool I always learnt that Taoism is a pantheistic belief but intersting post here!

[Rara]

Many thinkers have tried to define what religion is, but it seems it ultimately defies any neat characterisation. According to Wikipedia, the typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a "belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods" or the "service and worship of God or the supernatural". However, writers and scholars have expanded upon the "belief in god" definitions as insufficient to capture the diversity of religious thought and experience. The article goes on to state that there are numerous definitions of religion and lists several prominent ones. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

However, perhaps most tellingly, the section concludes with the statement: An increasing number of scholars have expressed reservations about ever defining the "essence" of religion.

 

All the Wikipedia listed definitions are interesting, but I particularly like William James definition from The Varieties of Religious of Religious Experiences. For James, the institutions of religion are highly secondary. They bore or offend James, as they do for many of us.

 

“Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual, it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it, theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may secondarily grow.”

 

I’d rephrase James’ wording as follows…

 

Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individuals in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the sacred.

 

As for Komjathy, the key word here, to my mind, is sacred. That is the pertinent question for me. What do I consider sacred? Do I consider anything sacred? I have thought further on the topic but before I continue I’m interested to hear what others think.

Sure. Last time I was with the local Buddhists, they still didn't believe in a God. Still, they are a religion.

[Rara]

I had to go back and figure out how 'religion' came into this thread...

 

We got on to the topic of how we felt Zhuangzi might have been as a person, and I argued that he would see "religious Taoism" as contradictory to his philosophy.

 

Nothing directly relevant to the chapter though!