Philosophy Now Forum

Whatever we believe in today, is a program that has been set into our hardware when we were born. As we grew up, we were programmed to believe in a God, in the heavens above, in the fear of God, in faith. We were taught that the Gods in temples, in churches and mosques are the Gods we must pray to and when looking at the image of God, we believed that was God.

But for spiritual aspirants, those who want to progress on the spiritual path, they have to review the program that has been set in them. They have to re-program their mind by questioning, by probing, by asking with curiosity; try to understand who we are, where we have come from and where we will go. We must ask - what is life and what is death? What is the power within each one of us - the soul, the spirit, the atman; whether there is life after death or not, and whether the law of cause and action – the law of Karma is true. There are many questions that need answers, but these questions will never get answers, unless we are ready to re-program ourselves.

As long as we continue to play the same program, the same music will run in our mind. The same thoughts will go through our head and we will never be able to change. But if we are ready to review our life-program, our religion, our spirituality, our beliefs, then there is a possibility that we may be able to look at something new; start a new spiritual journey, a new belief system, because questioning will give many answers that we never believed were possible. But yes, it all starts when we realize that the program of our life, a program that runs the philosophy of our way of life needs to be questioned, needs to be reviewed, needs to be changed.

AiR

I'm certainly not included in that 'we'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm certainly not included in that 'we'.

Unless you reject studies that indicate otherwise or are less than fully human, you are included in the 'we.' Studies do indeed indicate the tendency towards religion is hard-wired into us, but while it is wholly natural, it is not obligatory.

Atheists seem to take a certain pride in their ignorance, as if admitting ignorance means they are open to possibilities or that it makes them wise in the way Socrates was wise. But Socrates admitted to an internal voice that he regarded as divine or semi-divine which atheists vehemently deny for themselves. In discussions pertaining to ultimate origins, for example, when it is pointed out that self-consciousness is not and cannot be something apart from the self-existing quantum field even if it is ontologically distinct from it, atheists deny any connection to or attribution of consciousness to the quantum field -- and their denial is as adamant as any religious fanatic. As noted geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote in a review of Carl Sagan's last book, Billions & Billions:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

This is a frightening admission in anyone's book, and your commitment to atheism is no less religious-like.

The Inglorious One wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm certainly not included in that 'we'.

Unless you reject studies that indicate otherwise or are less than fully human, you are included in the 'we.' Studies do indeed indicate the tendency towards religion is hard-wired into us, but while it is wholly natural, it is not obligatory.

Atheists seem to take a certain pride in their ignorance, as if admitting ignorance means they are open to possibilities or that it makes them wise in the way Socrates was wise. But Socrates admitted to an internal voice that he regarded as divine or semi-divine which atheists vehemently deny for themselves. In discussions pertaining to ultimate origins, for example, when it is pointed out that self-consciousness is not and cannot be something apart from the self-existing quantum field even if it is ontologically distinct from it, atheists deny any connection to or attribution of consciousness to the quantum field -- and their denial is as adamant as any religious fanatic. As noted geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote in a review of Carl Sagan's last book, Billions & Billions:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

This is a frightening admission in anyone's book, and your commitment to atheism is no less religious-like.

It's hilarious the way religious nutters have this inferiority complex about 'atheists'. Actually I don't give you a second thought, except when you interfere in my life, which you do often. 'Atheism' isn't a choice for me. I'm just incapable of believing in the supernatural, which doesn't exist by definition, no matter how many 'cosmological non-arguments' you can come up with. The irony is that once you try to 'prove' the supernatural exists using 'science', you are essentially admitting that it doesn't exist. (I don't expect you to understand a word of this).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: It's hilarious the way religious nutters have this inferiority complex about 'atheists'. Actually I don't give you a second thought, except when you interfere in my life, which you do often.

And it's a belief you hold religiously.

The Inglorious One wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: It's hilarious the way religious nutters have this inferiority complex about 'atheists'. Actually I don't give you a second thought, except when you interfere in my life, which you do often.

And it's a belief you hold religiously.

Believe what you want. I now have to go and feed my non-dog.

But yes, it all starts when we realize that the program of our life, a program that runs the philosophy of our way of life needs to be questioned, needs to be reviewed, needs to be changed.

Go forth and do onto thyself.

The Inglorious One wrote:Studies do indeed indicate the tendency towards religion is hard-wired into us,

What studies?

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Studies do indeed indicate the tendency towards religion is hard-wired into us,

What studies?

And this coming from someone who believes he's right and physicists so wrong they are not even wrong.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Studies do indeed indicate the tendency towards religion is hard-wired into us,

What studies?

And this coming from someone who believes he's right and physicists so wrong they are not even wrong.

He only asked a simple question. What studies?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He only asked a simple question. What studies?

The operative word here is 'believes,' or didn't you notice?

As a side, why don't atheists ever discuss ontology?

What do beliefs have to do with ontology?

What studies?

What ontology?

What's to discuss?

Obvious Leo wrote:What do beliefs have to do with ontology?

Seriously? And you call yourself a philosopher of science?

Were it not for the innate ability of mind to form a frame in which to think, it would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern. We call this frame our 'worldview.' We all have one, whether we realize it or not; we all postulate conclusions and invent origins that we may have a means of logical thought. That's where ontology comes in. And while such universe frames for thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

A particular ontology may or may not be epistemically justified. For example, there are just four known grounds for life as we experience and know it: chance, necessity, purpose or some combination thereof. The first is not a cause nor does does it have explanatory power, so building your world view on it is not epistemically justifiable; it's just a way of saying 'I don't know.' To build your house on chance is to build it on a foundation of sand. It is irrelevant to human progress and civilization no matter how fantastic and wonderful the technological innovations it gives rise to. The other three grounds point to some kind of Divinity. In short, ontology is the philosophy committed atheists fear to discuss because they fear that their epistemically unjustifiable worldview will come to light and be seen for what it is: a hollow sham.

Many atheists argue that 'I don't know' is justified and presume the admission somehow makes them wise or more intelligent than 'believers.' But what is their history of accomplishments? What civilizations have they built up? How do they harness the forces that are necessary to create societies? Even Socrates, whom they imagine they emulate when they say 'I don't know,' admitted to having an internal voice that he considered divine or semi-divine.

So, Leo, what do YOU believe? What is your justification? And don't say you don't believe anything because that would indicate all the intellectual depth of a dehydrated sponge. Every psychologist in the world would call you nuts (though probably be more polite about it).

The Inglorious One wrote: Many atheists argue that 'I don't know' is justified and presume the admission somehow makes them wise or more intelligent than 'believers.'

No, it just makes them more inclined to seek factual, effective, reliable information than do people who are sure they have the one and only final answer - which keeps crapping out in practical application.

But what is their history of accomplishments? What civilizations have they built up?

All of them. While the priests were busy throwing babies off parapets, engineers were busy figuring out how to build parapets that didn't break off under the weight of all those fat priests and civil servants were busy, organizing slave auctions, collecting taxes and making sure there was enough rat-proof storage space for the harvest. They didn't need more than superficial lip-service and regular attendance at rituals to pass as believers, so they could get on with work that needed doing. Even the kings mostly didn't believe the gobbledegook preached to the masses - I can tell by the way many had themselves declared deities and subsumed the 'superstition' of conquered peoples into their own carved-in-stone religions.

How do they harness the forces that are necessary to create societies?

Harnessing the gullibility of crowds is certainly priest's work. Of course, most of them are closet atheists, as well.

If the rulers and prelates actually believed in the gods they preach, would they dare to behave the way they do?