Religion Is .....

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6904
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:06 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:43 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:44 pm
The sense of 'self' is an illusion.
Hello DAM.

Do you agree with Sri Ramana Maharshi’s concept of Self?

Quote:

The Self: This the term that he used the most frequently. He defined it by saying that the real Self or real ‘I’ is, contrary to perceptible experience, not an experience of individuality but a non-personal, all-inclusive awareness. It is not to be confused with the individual self which he said was essentially non-existent, being a fabrication of the mind which obscures the true experience of the real Self. He maintained that the real Self is always present and always experienced but he emphasized that one is only consciously aware of it as it really is when the self-limiting tendencies of the mind have ceased. Permanent and continuous Self-awareness is known as Self-Realisation.”

- David Godman
Be As You Are, The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi
Hi Walker.

Yes I agree with Sri Ramana Maharshi’s concept of Self ...when he says ''(the individual self which he said was essentially non-existent, being a fabrication of the mind which obscures the true experience of the real Self.)''

I agree the mind obscures the real self which is the permanent constant infinite self which is the first and last SELF...which lies behind the conceptual non-existing individual self which is just an appearance within the first and last ONLY ONE ALL ALONE SELF... therefore, the real self is KNOWN via being it, via actual direct experience ..in that SELF is this immediate DIRECT EXPERIENCE...

Nothing exists outside external to direct experience..so there is no other consciousness experiencing that direct experience which is consciousness itself, or put another way awareness aware of itself. The real SELF is just another term for INFINITY which is all there is experiencing itself as infinite finite selves...aka dreamt fictional character appearances of no thing.

.

Ramu
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:55 pm

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Ramu » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:47 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:38 pm
Religion is like a review of half a movie, written by someone many years ago. In that review they make their own conclusions how the movie ends.

Science is a rejection of that review, by someone who watched the whole movie.
Science wants to see the whole movie but only sees half the movie just like the Theist. Why no you say to yourself...that can't be!! Science isn't based on a belief system! However Science is just as dogmatic as the Theist. It's all conceptual and denies first person subjective and the Noumena. Science can't even say the movie is playing unless their is some sort of artificial third party verification...which is all occurring within the first person subjective!!!

Ramu
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:55 pm

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Ramu » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:53 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:32 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:26 pm
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Beliefs are thoughts.

Thoughts are expressions being perceived.

Perceptions are being expressed by nothing, for nothing, for there is no visible perceiver but the invisible thought.
1) you bumped your head?
2) you are high on something?!?!
3) plz go elsewhere and spew your pure nonsense and babble!!
But why are you saying she is spewing nonsense. Theists use belief just as much as science does. Science uses concepts. Concepts are not Actual. Concepts have as much substance and actuality as beliefs...None whatsoever. Science is always confusing the map for the territory.

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by uwot » Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:17 pm

Ramu wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:53 pm
Theists use belief just as much as science does.
Fundamentally, science is about what happens. You don't have to believe that something happens; with the right experiment, you can see it happening. Then you measure it, and if you are smart enough, you devise a mathematical formula that accounts for what you see. You can make up any belief you like to explain what happens, but if your belief makes predictions that you consistently fail to see happen, it's time to change your belief. Religion is starting with a belief, and making everything you see happen fit into that context.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by HexHammer » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:48 am

Ramu wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:53 pm
But why are you saying she is spewing nonsense. Theists use belief just as much as science does. Science uses concepts. Concepts are not Actual. Concepts have as much substance and actuality as beliefs...None whatsoever. Science is always confusing the map for the territory.
You should equate is it a SOUND thesis? ..a thesis isn't just sound just because it's a thesis.

This is a philosophy forum which means "love of wisdom" not love of nonsense and babble!

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:48 am

This reminds me about Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. A satirical blog about a rationalist in a magical realm.
Chapter 2 describes religion perfectly: Everything I Believe Is False http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/2

It should take you less than 5 minutes to read it - and if you are too lazy to do even THAT, then the TL;DR is as follows.

If you hold ANY belief that you are unwilling to give up even upon empirical, direct demonstration to the contrary of your belief - you are religious.

If you can't be convinced (given sufficient evidence) that you are mistaken about your own birthday or first name - you are religious.

Just one is all it takes. Find ALL your Holly Cows and slaughter them!

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6904
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:59 am

HexHammer wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:48 am
You should equate is it a SOUND thesis? ..a thesis isn't just sound just because it's a thesis.

This is a philosophy forum which means "love of wisdom" not love of nonsense and babble!
There is no such thing as a SOUND thesis. A thesis is just one of multiple conceptual ideas which are subject to change. All ideas are disguises they are appearances always subject to change within absolute truth.

True philosophy is not a theory or a thesis. True philosophy is about grounding yourself in absolute truth, which is the groundless ground upon which all appearances / ideas come and go.

Regarding Philosophy...there is true philosophy and there is pseudo philosophy ... your job as a philosopher is to discern the real from the unreal, to be able to look at philosophy in two different ways both at the same time, and to see both true philosopy and pseudo philosophy are actually the same philosophy..albeit seen in two different ways...and that one does not take presidence over the other..one side has no more real reality and truth over the other side, they are both couched in each other.

For example: there is no discernible difference between the mirror and what the mirror is reflecting for they are inseparably one in the same instant. Any difference is what the mind is placing it's attention on, and yet the mind is already occuring within the totality of absolute being of all that IS....so it has no SOUND say on anything because it's an illusion, it's just an appearance within the ever unchanging absolute of all that IS.

Any difference is purely conceptual, so going back to the mirror and it's reflection analogy, say if the mind places it's focus on the reflection only, it will not see the mirror, and if it's focus is on the mirror only, it will not see the reflection. And yet both are existing simultaneously as ONE ABSOLUTE REALITY...ALWAYS NOW.

Wisdom is about being able to discern the apparent difference to show actually there is no difference there / here. That's true wisdom.

The conceptual mind creates an artifical gap in what is always this immanent seamless absolute totality..the mind cannot repair the breech, it cannot close the gap, it has to be seen for what it is, and be allowed to dissolve back into it's source, the real true self, which is transcendent of the mind, when that is seen, then unification is restored. Non-duality is the unification of duality.

The mind is the interplay of opposites always occuring within itself, the only ONE SELF becoming conscious of itself, for there is only Consciousness playing with itself.



“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by HexHammer » Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:05 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:59 am
There is no such thing as a SOUND thesis. A thesis is just one of multiple conceptual ideas which are subject to change. All ideas are disguises they are appearances always subject to change within absolute truth.
Ok then, I have a thesis that small pink unicorns lives up your butt! ..how's that for a thesis?

Walker
Posts: 6844
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Walker » Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:48 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:06 pm
I agree the mind obscures the real self which is the permanent constant infinite self which is the first and last SELF...which lies behind the conceptual non-existing individual self which is just an appearance within the first and last ONLY ONE ALL ALONE SELF... therefore, the real self is KNOWN via being it, via actual direct experience ..in that SELF is this immediate DIRECT EXPERIENCE...
“We dig a well and create a huge pit. The space in the pit or well has not been created by us. We have just removed the earth which was filling the space there. The space was there then and is also there now. Similarly we have simply to throw out all the age-long samskaras [innate tendencies] which are inside us. When all of them have been given up, the Self will shine alone.

- Sri Ramana Maharshi
The Nature of The Self


Commentary: Even the negative samskaras are a safe comfort in their familiarity.

Walker
Posts: 6844
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Walker » Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:05 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:59 am
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald
That quote sounds like George Orwell.

Walker
Posts: 6844
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Walker » Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:35 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:06 pm
Hi Walker.

Yes I agree with Sri Ramana Maharshi’s concept of Self ...when he says ''(the individual self which he said was essentially non-existent, being a fabrication of the mind which obscures the true experience of the real Self.)''
Attention turned inward finds Self.
Attention turned outward finds self (ego).

Our tendency as humans is to mirror.
To mirror is in the nature of mind.
Mirroring lies at the crux of relationship, and learning.

Awareness mirrors either Self, or self.
Mirroring Self mirrors all, for there is but one Self.

You (Self) are not this body exclusively.

Are you (self) this body exclusively?

Walker
Posts: 6844
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Walker » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:17 am

Contemplating “samskara” may be helpful to answer the question for oneself.

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by Justintruth » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:24 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:26 pm
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Beliefs are thoughts.

Thoughts are expressions being perceived.

Perceptions are being expressed by nothing, for nothing, for there is no visible perceiver but the invisible thought.

.
The "universe" is a particular class of beliefs based on science that defines as best we can what is. Science makes no statement as to the cause of the universe and certainly, therefore, the set of beliefs that constitute what we think of when we think of the universe contains no statement as to its cause. To paraphrase Wald, a distinguished expert on the big bang: At 10^-nn seconds (a very small time very much smaller than a nano second - I think it was 10 ^ -43 but am not sure) the universe was the size of Planks constant and any statement made about a time prior to that is purely speculative". So the big bang does not "explain the origin of the universe" but it describes how it evolved from a very, very small object very close to the singularity, into what it is now. " (By the way it was radiation and matter in equilibrium at that early time). “The universe" as understood scientifically also does not contain anything about its purpose. It does not even make a statement that it has no purpose. It is silent on purpose. Primordial entropy or not. Goldilocks or not. It is silent on those matters.

Now "religion" must be disambiguated. Much of what we call "religion" is not a set of beliefs. In fact theology is the set of beliefs about religion. If you look at theology itself, there are many kinds. Some is based on religious experience. Some is not. Often a theology of religious experience is thought to give an answer that science cannot. For example the Catholic catechism starts with "Who made me?" "God made me." "Why did God make me?" "To know love and serve Him". This, at first blush seems and answer to the origin of the universe. If it is taken literally as in "There was this guy (or girl!) named God who once upon a time decided to make a universe" Then you could say that that is the cause. But that is a gross oversimplification for creation is eternal not temporal and it is impossible to speak intelligently about its origin as a moment in time. Rather it is the creation of time that is what is referred to quote..oh not sure who he was…some famous theologian…Jaques Charitan…bad with names. But even there, if you believe that there exists this other dimension in which some God factually exists you will be wrong theologically. The eternallity of God prohibits such a description. The best secular word for what is meant by God theologically is "Being" and the word is often captialized for the same reason God is spelled with a capital letter.

Now all of this comes from "religious experience" a scientific view of religious experience can be had by understanding how neurology creates experiencing in homo sapien sapien brains and correlating it with the religious experiencing that the brain is capable of. That experiencing is cognitive and is the source of the strange descriptions you hear of religion.

In some sense, religious experience allows one to experience the "cause of the universe" but it is not an experience of any factually existing entity. That is the strange thing. It rather is just the awareness of the superfluous nature of the universe and an awareness of how it is requiring (different from “does require” or “requires”) something beyond itself for its presence. In a sense it is an experience of causing itself. In a sense the phrase “It just is” is exactly what religious experience entails but the non-religious interpretation is a kind of dismissal and ridicule of any amazement. That is the function of the “just”, it’s a dismissal. The religious statement might be “It is!” but even that is wrong because it assumes something that is a mistake, namely that something once created stays in existence as an “it”. If I saw a cup on a table I might ask “Who made this?” and the answer would be someone who acted a while ago to manufacture it but now, once it is made, it needs no more making to stay in existence. But the religious experience of the same fact would be amazed that cups continue. It does not experience being as a set of things. That they have stability, that what is has these stabilities that we objectify, is seen as amazing and fundamentally unfounded in what these things are. And it is seen as a gift. A wonderful gift. Unfounded right now. That is why you get these references to “the now” in religious experience. It is all based on an awareness that there is no reason for what is to be being at all, even right now, never mind the fact that there is no reason for it to be the way it is and continues to be, there is not even a reason for it to be at all. Even if the universe was as science described it, it could cease to be that way in a moment. Science draws its data from the universe not the other way around.

Fact, always trumps theory. Einstein called it the homogeneity of time and realized it was an assumption of scientific theory, not something that could be proved, only disproved as Popper describes. It can always change and then we have to re-theorize.

Also, the religious experience is what is called sacred. My own scientific conjecture is that this is related to our survival and reproductive instincts and is mediated by our hormonal systems, that is religious experience is a kind of activation of our sexuality. The experience is one of infinite beauty. Its as if every desire you have becomes satisfied. The technical term is ecstasy. There is nothing like that in science – well not until the neurologists get to where they can see what is happening.

Oh yea, I forgot to say the “the universe” as thought of by most scientists is not a set of ideas. “The universe” contains in it a kind of negation described very well by Sartre in Being and Nothingness. That negation is that it is that the universe is “not” the thought of it, “nor” is it the sight or sound of it. The universe is in itself, independent of our experiencing it. But I digress….

Also, the religious experience is silent on what is. In other words it is something true of any possible world that becomes and is even true of the fact of possibility itself. Genuine religion is not a description of the nature of the universe. Nor even a description of which possible worlds should be called “universes”. Only fundamentalist “religions” are such descriptions. That is why they are inherently irreligious. They are in fact just bad science. That includes secular fundamentalism which is an interpretation of science as explanation and a “belief” in the power of the universe to sustain itself. Its not science it is secular fundamentalism or “scientism” as it is sometimes called. Both religious and not religious fundamentalism are irreligious and conversely the experience of the sacred in secular or in religious terms is inherently religious. Carl Sagan, in spite of his conceptual confusion, continually tried to inspire secular religious experience in his listeners. Why? Because they get off on that, ratings go up, and he could continue to ride the wave. Oh I am being too judgmental. He was just confused as hell!

I am afraid that I must also say that those who understand religion to give the purpose of the universe are mistaken. It can, through a relationship with God, establish something like a friendship with God, and can draw conclusions about “Gods will” or “Gods purpose” but that is Gods will or purpose “for me” Those who claim to know it, when you interrogate them as to how they know, have no foundation. That does not mean that religion cannot offer us something, or describe, our purpose as sentients and certainly as mammals. Whether insects or reptiles are religious and to what extent only science will tell and that in the distant future. No hope of it now. We know way too little. Insects and reptiles do have survival instincts and can track objects. To do this implies some ontological functioning. How that works? Do bees love their hive-mates etc?.. is yet to be determined.

So I think: “A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe” is very wrong.
Moving on…
Beliefs are thoughts? Well maybe some. But you again need to parse terms. Our minds are capable of thinking things without realizing what it is that we believe. There are what are called “hidden assumptions” and again the phrase “Beliefs are thoughts” is just so skeletally impoverished its – well as the saying goes – not even false. More like mostly meaningless as it stands.

Thoughts are expressions being perceived? Oh really? Well, there is a way that rhetoric takes hold doesn’t it. Rheos as opposed to Logos? Oh well, knock yourself out.

“Perceptions are being expressed by nothing, for nothing, for there is no visible perceiver but the invisible thought” Well, a fine attempt to communicate some of the mystical experience but…well… it fails as more than it succeeds. “Nothing” is non-being? It would be strange if thoughts were visible no? Then we could look around the room and find a thought to think. Oh I know what you mean but statements like this drive me crazy because they give mysticism such a bad name. No one can really get anything out of them. Yes the “expressor” is not any “thing”, and therefor *in* *a* *sense* not anything, and the “perceiver is not visible” – except as a brain but that is not a perceiver if conceived of in the normal way derived from mechanistic biology. And again true, thoughts are invisible…again caveated with the fact that we can see them occur in the brain in some ways. We can tell when a person is thinking vs anesthetized so *in* *a* *sense* we can actually see them again thanks to the science and to the fact of the universe being stable enough to give meaning to the terms.

Much better to find a better way to say all of this. The theology of the future will be very interesting. Those who see religion as a thing of the past are in for a rude awakening once the neurologists gain engineering control over religious experience. Then the real war will occur between those who insist in being dismissive and try to cure us of the sacred and those that revel in the fact of love. Will the powers of be try to eliminate the sacred in themselves and then try to instill it in others while associating its force of love on themselves so that they can exercise their own wills through the cooperative actions of others? Or will the engineering control finally give people like the bat faced president some taste of religious experience so he is at least a little knocked off of his high horse! Who knows? But for sure evil is a kind of genius. In Africa they were training child soldiers. Graduation was to take a woman, and restrain her so the graduates could each take her face off one bite at a time each “student” taking a bite out of her face as a kind of “graduation”. That my friends is pure evil genius It is that we are up against, not just the stupidity of fundamentalist interpretation but the reality of evil.

roydop
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by roydop » Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:19 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:48 am
Ramu wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:53 pm
But why are you saying she is spewing nonsense. Theists use belief just as much as science does. Science uses concepts. Concepts are not Actual. Concepts have as much substance and actuality as beliefs...None whatsoever. Science is always confusing the map for the territory.
You should equate is it a SOUND thesis? ..a thesis isn't just sound just because it's a thesis.

This is a philosophy forum which means "love of wisdom" not love of nonsense and babble!
Just because you don't "get it" doesn't mean it's nonsense. You just don't get it. And you won't get it via thought, but via experience (of thought free Awareness).

roydop
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Religion Is .....

Post by roydop » Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:24 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:48 am
This reminds me about Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. A satirical blog about a rationalist in a magical realm.
Chapter 2 describes religion perfectly: Everything I Believe Is False http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/2

It should take you less than 5 minutes to read it - and if you are too lazy to do even THAT, then the TL;DR is as follows.

If you hold ANY belief that you are unwilling to give up even upon empirical, direct demonstration to the contrary of your belief - you are religious.

If you can't be convinced (given sufficient evidence) that you are mistaken about your own birthday or first name - you are religious.

Just one is all it takes. Find ALL your Holly Cows and slaughter them!
Then everyone is religious because everyone believes there is a separate being "your name here" and this is just a belief.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests